An innovative cycling exergame to promote cardiovascular fitness in youth with cerebral palsy: A brief report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of an internet-platform exergame cycling programme on cardiovascular fitness of youth with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: In this pilot prospective case series, eight youth with bilateral spastic CP, Gross Motor Functional Classification System (GMFCS) level III, completed a six-week exergame programme. Outcomes were obtained at baseline and post-intervention. The primary outcome measure was the GMFCS III-specific shuttle run test (SRT-III). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HQL) as measured by the KIDSCREEN-52 questionnaire, six-minute walk test, Wingate arm cranking test and anthropomorphic measurements. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in the SRT-III (t = -2.5, p = 0.04, d = 0.88) post-intervention. There were no significant changes in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: An exergame cycling programme may lead to improvement in cardiovascular fitness in youth with CP. This study was limited by small sample size and lack of a comparison group. Future research is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".