Systematic review of power mobility outcomes for infants, children and adolescents with mobility limitations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize and critically appraise the evidence related to power mobility use in children (18 years or younger) with mobility limitations. DATA SOURCES: Searches were performed in 12 electronic databases along with hand searching for articles published in English to September 2012 and updated February 2014. REVIEW METHODS: The search was restricted to quantitative studies including at least one child with a mobility limitation and measuring an outcome related to power mobility device use. Articles were appraised using American Academy of Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine (AACPDM) criteria for group and single-subject designs. The PRISMA statement was followed with inclusion criteria set a priori. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles. AACPDM quality ratings were completed for levels I-III studies. RESULTS: Of 259 titles, 29 articles met inclusion criteria, describing 28 primary research studies. One study, rated as strong level II evidence, supported positive impact of power mobility on overall development as well as independent mobility. Another study, rated as moderate level III evidence, supported positive impact on self-initiated movement. Remaining studies, rated evidence levels IV and V, provided support for a positive impact on a broad range of outcomes from to International Classification of Functioning (ICF) components of body structure and function, activity and participation. Some studies suggest that environmental factors may be influential in successful power mobility use and skill development. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence supporting outcomes for children using power mobility is primarily descriptive rather than experimental in nature, suggesting research in this area is in its infancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it