MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528982743 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012839

Strength Training for Adolescents with cerebral palsy (STAR): study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to determine the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of resistance training for adolescents with cerebral palsy

2016· article· en· W2528982743 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Ryan, Nicola Theis, Cherry Kilbride, Vasilios Baltzopoulos, Charlotte Waugh, Adam Shortland, Grace Lavelle, Marika Noorkõiv, Wendy J. Levin, Thomas Korff

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAction Medical ResearchHenry Smith CharityChartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust
KeywordsCerebral palsyMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitRandomized controlled trialGross Motor Function Classification SystemRehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Gait is inefficient in children with cerebral palsy, particularly as they transition to adolescence. Gait inefficiency may be associated with declines in gross motor function and participation among adolescents with cerebral palsy. Resistance training may improve gait efficiency through a number of biomechanical and neural mechanisms. The aim of the Strength Training for Adolescents with cerebral palsy (STAR) trial is to evaluate the effect of resistance training on gait efficiency, activity and participation in adolescents with cerebral palsy. We also aim to determine the biomechanical and neural adaptations that occur following resistance training and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of such an intervention for adolescents with cerebral palsy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 60 adolescents (Gross Motor Function Classification System level I-III) will be randomised to a 10-week resistance training group or a usual care control group according to a computer-generated random schedule. The primary outcome is gait efficiency. Secondary outcomes are habitual physical activity, participation, muscle-tendon mechanics and gross motor function. General linear models will be used to evaluate differences in continuous data between the resistance training and usual care groups at 10 and 22 weeks, respectively. A process evaluation will be conducted alongside the intervention. Fidelity of the resistance training programme to trial protocol will be quantified by observations of exercise sessions. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists following the resistance training programme to determine feasibility and acceptability of the programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has ethical approval from Brunel University London's Department of Clinical Sciences' Research Ethics Committee and the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee London-Surrey Borders. The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in academic journals, presented at conferences and distributed to adolescents, families and healthcare professionals through the media with the assistance of the STAR advisory group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN90378161; Pre-results.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.009

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207