MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512505405 · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2016.23.9.444

Evidence-informed clinical perspectives on selecting gait trainer features for children with cerebral palsy

2016· article· en· W2512505405 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ginny Paleg, Roslyn Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsSunny Hill Health Centre for Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyTrainerGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationExpert opinionPhysical therapyGait analysisPsychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aims: Children with cerebral palsy often use gait trainers to augment their mobility. These are supportive walking devices that take the weight of the body through a solid or fabric ‘seat’, stabilise the trunk, and support the pelvis. The purpose of this analysis article is to review the evidence and clinical considerations influencing the selection of gait trainer features for children with cerebral palsy and to describe gait trainer models. Methods: A scoping methodology was used to identify any relevant research and clinical literature supporting the selection of different gait trainer features. An internet search was undertaken to identify a wide range of gait trainers currently available. Factors influencing the selection of different gait trainer features including frame and wheel style and support options are discussed, combining information from manufacturers’ websites, expert opinion and evidence from the literature review. Results: Twenty-seven articles were included in this study. These included nine intervention studies, three articles describing gait trainer development, three expert opinion articles, a survey of therapist opinion and a study comparing physical properties of three different gait trainers. In addition information on device features relevant to gait trainers was drawn from 10 intervention studies of children using hand-held walkers. Twenty-four different gait trainers were identified as being commercially available in the UK, Canada and USA at time of searching. Conclusions: Evidence supporting selection of gait trainer styles and features for children with cerebral palsy is very limited. Further research is needed in all aspects of gait trainer assessment, selection and implementation. Clinical consensus may be helpful in providing guidance in decision-making around prescription and use of gait trainers and features for children with cerebral palsy who have differing clinical profiles and needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.218
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.218
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207