MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150701410 · doi:10.3233/prm-130260

"Wii-Hab" in critically ill children: A pilot trial

2013· article· en· W2150701410 on OpenAlexaff
Farah Abdulsatar, Rachel Walker, Brian W. Timmons, Karen Choong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of virtual reality (VR) exercise as a novel acute rehabilitation intervention in a Pediatric Critical Care Unit (PCCU) setting. METHODS: Children aged 3-18 years with an anticipated PCCU stay > 48 hours, and baseline normal to moderate cognitive and functional disability were eligible. Exclusion criteria included: anticipated death, physical inability, or a contraindication to mobilization. Nintendo Wii™ Boxing was prescribed for a minimum of 10 minutes twice a day for 2 days. Primary outcomes were feasibility and safety. RESULTS: Of 21 eligible patients, 12 (57.1%) were enrolled and 8 completed the study. 41.7% (5/12) were males, and the median age was 11 (3,16) years. Four of the 8 participants who received the intervention were mechanically ventilated during Wii™ play. Participants used the Wii™ a median of 2 times (1,5) over the 2-day intervention period, for a median total duration of 54.5 (15, 224) minutes. There were no adverse events attributable to the intervention. Upper limb activity during Wii™ was significantly greater than the average daily activity (p=0.049). Grip strength did not change significantly from baseline (p=0.20). CONCLUSION: While the results of this pilot trial suggest that VR exercise may be safely applied in a subset of critically ill children, we observed several threats to its feasibility in this population.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations64
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207