Informing evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines for children with cerebral palsy at risk of osteoporosis: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the impact of new evidence for weight-bearing, bisphosphonates, and vitamin D and calcium interventions, towards updating the systematic review and clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis in children with cerebral palsy (CP) published in 2011. METHOD: Computer-assisted literature searches were conducted for articles published from 2010 to 2016. Searches focused on children with CP functioning at Gross Motor Function Classification System levels III to V and limited to weight-bearing activities, bisphosphonates, and vitamin D and/or calcium supplementation. Articles were classified according to the American Academy of Neurology guidelines to update the grading of the evidence for improving bone mineral density (BMD) and decreasing fragility fractures. RESULTS: Six new articles underwent full-text review and data abstraction. These included one weight-bearing, three bisphosphonate, and two mixed intervention studies (bisphosphonate and vitamin D/calcium supplementation). Overall, there continues to be 'probable' evidence for bisphosphonates, 'possible' evidence for vitamin D/calcium, and 'insufficient' evidence for weight-bearing activities as effective interventions to improve low BMD in children with CP. There is 'possible' evidence for bisphosphonates in reducing fragility fractures. INTERPRETATION: The grading of evidence to support the use of weight-bearing activities, bisphosphonates, and vitamin D and calcium supplementation in pediatric CP osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines remained the same.
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 | 0.058 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".