Impact of multi‐modal web‐based rehabilitation on occupational performance and upper limb outcomes: pilot randomized trial in children with acquired brain injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine whether the multi-modal web-based rehabilitation 'Move it to improve it' (Mitii) is more effective than wait list control (usual care) to improve occupational performance, upper limb function, and visual perception in children with acquired brain injury (ABI). METHOD: Fifty-eight randomly allocated children (53% males; mean age 11y 11mo, SD 2y 6mo; Manual Abilities Classification Scale equivalent I=32, II=24, III=2; mean Full-scale IQ 75.8, SD 16.2) received either 20 weeks of Mitii (n=29) or usual care (n=29). Mitii comprised upper limb, cognitive, visual perception, and gross motor tasks, recommended for 30 minutes per day, 6 days per week, over 20 weeks. Outcomes were the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function, Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function, Test of Visual Perceptual Skills, Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA), and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The primary comparison at 20 weeks between groups on the AMPS process and motor measures used generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Groups were equivalent at baseline. Participants completed on average 17.6 hours (range 0-46h) of Mitii. There were no differences between groups on the primary outcome (AMPS process: estimated mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.2, p=0.589; and AMPS motor: estimated mean difference 0.2, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5, p=0.192). There were no differences between groups on overall visual perception, upper limb, and occupational performance outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Mitii led to negligible changes on all primary and secondary outcomes compared with usual care. This likely reflects the small dose achieved and poses questions around the acceptability and feasibility of home-delivered Mitii in this population of children with ABI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".