MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Paediatric massage: an overview of the evidence

2012· review· en· W2169269085 on OpenAlexaff
Stacey Shipwright, Trish Dryden

Bibliographic record

VenueFocus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassageMedicineNarrative reviewModalitiesPopularityTreatment modalityPhysical therapyAlternative medicineScarcityIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of complementary and alternative medicine in paediatric care is growing in popularity in North America; massage therapy is one of these popular modalities. Despite the increased use of massage therapy among paediatric patients, there remains a scarcity of evidence in comparison to adult populations; however, the paediatric evidence base is growing. This article provides a narrative overview of the evidence for massage therapy for infants and children, including a brief discussion of the safety of massage, potential mechanisms of action and directions for future research.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.469
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.058 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFocus on Alternative and Complementary TherapiesSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207