MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605818527 · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.02.032

Components of Standing Postural Control Evaluated in Pediatric Balance Measures: A Scoping Review

2017· review· en· W2605818527 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn M. Sibley, Marla Beauchamp, Karen Van Ooteghem, Marie Paterson, Kristy Wittmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of WaterlooToronto Rehabilitation InstituteGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)CINAHLPhysical therapyBalance problemsMEDLINEFunctional Independence MeasurePosturographyRehabilitationMedicinePsychologyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify measures of standing balance validated in pediatric populations, and to determine the components of postural control captured in each tool. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases using key word combinations of postural balance/equilibrium, psychometrics/reproducibility of results/predictive value of tests, and child/pediatrics; gray literature; and hand searches. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were measures with a stated objective to assess balance, with pediatric (≤18y) populations, with at least 1 psychometric evaluation, with at least 1 standing task, with a standardized protocol and evaluation criteria, and published in English. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion. There were 21 measures included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted descriptive characteristics, and 2 investigators independently coded components of balance in each measure using a systems perspective for postural control, an established framework for balance in pediatric populations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Components of balance evaluated in measures were underlying motor systems (100% of measures), anticipatory postural control (72%), static stability (62%), sensory integration (52%), dynamic stability (48%), functional stability limits (24%), cognitive influences (24%), verticality (9%), and reactive postural control (0%). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing children's balance with valid and comprehensive measures is important for ensuring development of safe mobility and independence with functional tasks. Balance measures validated in pediatric populations to date do not comprehensively assess standing postural control and omit some key components for safe mobility and independence. Existing balance measures, that have been validated in adult populations and address some of the existing gaps in pediatric measures, warrant consideration for validation in children.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207