MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170085000 · doi:10.1080/096382800296737

An assessment of gait analysis in the rehabilitation of children with walking difficulties

2000· review· en· W2170085000 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Hailey, Jo-Anne Tomie

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitRehabilitationGait analysisMedicineCerebral palsyPhysical therapyInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthQuality of life (healthcare)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the current status of computerized gait analysis techniques in the management of children with cerebral palsy or spina bifida who have significant walking disorders. METHOD: Synthesis of available data from a review of the literature, drawing on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PRE-MEDLINE, HealthStar and PsychInfo. Other information was obtained from persons with expertise in computerized gait analysis. Cost data were obtained from Canadian rehabilitation centres and the provincial health ministry. RESULTS: This technology seems helpful in detecting gait changes. However, available evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the influence of computerized gait analysis on treatment outcomes. Part of the rationale for use of the technology is that costs of gait analysis (of the order of $ CAN 2,000 per examination) would be offset by a decrease in follow-up surgical procedures and associated hospital care. There could also be a major influence on children's independence and quality of life. However, there are as yet no convincing data to support these propositions. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized gait analysis is a potentially useful technology in the management of children with walking disabilities, but its efficacy is not established. It should be regarded as a developing technology and its clinical application linked to systematic collection and assessment of outcomes data.

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)0.000
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 score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.347
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations33
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207