Effectiveness of Treadmill Training in Children With Motor Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to synthesize current evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treadmill training (TT), including partial body-weight support (PBWS) TT (PBWSTT), TT only, robotic-assist PBWSTT, and mixed TT, in children with motor impairments. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted in 10 databases through May 2010. Two reviewers independently selected titles, abstracts (k = 0.78), and full-text articles (k = 1.0). Of the 1166 titles retrieved, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality of included studies was assessed using AMSTAR criteria. RESULTS: Results of each systematic review were tabulated on the basis of levels of evidence, with outcomes categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. Conflicting interpretations of outcomes were found between reviews, yet conclusions were similar. CONCLUSIONS: TT demonstrates encouraging results, but more rigorous research is needed before clinicians can be confident of its effectiveness and clinical guidelines can be developed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".