MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318529402 · doi:10.1055/s-2006-945550

ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR CEREBRAL PALSY

2006· article· en· W2318529402 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropediatrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological interventionApplied psychologyPopulationRehabilitationPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingPhysical therapyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Measurement of outcomes is important, providing accurate and useful information to consumers, service-providers, managers, policymakers and researchers. Assessment tools evaluate particular attributes of the individual and should have sound psychometric properties. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) has recently been developed and endorsed by the World Health Organization, and provides an extremely useful framework for selecting appropriate assessment tools. All aspects of a child's health and functioning at the organ system, individual and societal levels are considered. Furthermore, possible facilitators and obstacles to achieving functional independence that are either intrinsic to the child (personal factors) or extrinsic (environmental factors) are considered. Common assessment tools used in the clinical setting and in clinical research for children and youth with cerebral palsy will be briefly described. In particular, assessments such as the Gross Motor Function Measure and the Gross Motor Function Classification System and new quality of life measures developed specifically for this population of interest will be highlighted. Careful consideration of all levels of functioning and health and their determinants may be helpful in guiding program planning, interventions and health policy so as to optimize functional outcomes. In particular, key contextual factors such as community resources, family supports and the child's motivation are potentially modifiable, and therefore efforts to address personal and environmental obstacles may ultimately maximize a child's intrinsic functional potential. Current challenges to the adoption of a more holistic, client-centred approach to the evaluation of children's functioning and health will be a focus of this presentation.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · 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