MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147465456 · doi:10.1080/17483100600627382

Evaluation of the longer-term use of the David Hart Walker Orthosis by children with cerebral palsy: a 3-year prospective evaluation

2006· article· en· W2147465456 on OpenAlexaff
F. Virginia Wright, Jeffrey W. Jutai

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersRotary Foundation
KeywordsCerebral palsyDiscontinuationPhysical therapyMedicineProspective cohort studyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate a walking device, the David Hart Walker Orthosis (HW), that was designed to allow children with severe cerebral palsy to ambulate with hands-free support. METHOD: A pre-/post-test prospective one-group study evaluated outcomes three years after receiving the HW. Physical therapy assessment, parent interview and satisfaction questionnaire provided details on outcomes. RESULTS: The HW remained the sole walking device for 13 of 20 children at 3 years. Six of seven children who discontinued use were over 12-years-old and had outgrown its maximum size. Twelve of 13 children who still used the HW were assessed. GMFM Stand and Walk Dimension mean score increases of about 3% points for the 1- 3-year follow-up were not significant (P > 0.16). Timed walk scores were unchanged. Steering ability gains were demonstrated on a directional mobility assessment (from 12.0 to 27.9% [P= 0.02]). Despite its eventual height limitations, parents considered HW use to be worthwhile (mean satisfaction = 8.2/10). CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-five percent of the children continued to use the HW as their sole walking device, and demonstrated improved ability overall to manoeuvre it during functional ambulation. The primary reason for discontinuation was inability to accommodate taller children.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207