Should the Gross Motor Function Classification System be used for children who do not have cerebral palsy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This literature review addressed four questions. (1) In which populations other than cerebral palsy (CP) has the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) been applied? (2) In what types of study, and why was it used? (3) How was it modified to facilitate these applications? (4) What justifications and evidence of psychometric adequacy were used to support its application? A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases (January 1997 to April 2017) using the terms: 'GMFCS' OR 'Gross Motor Function Classification System' yielded 2499 articles. 118 met inclusion criteria and reported children/adults with 133 health conditions/clinical descriptions other than CP. Three broad GMFCS applications were observed: as a categorization tool, independent variable, or outcome measure. While the GMFCS is widely used for children with health conditions/clinical description other than CP, researchers rarely provided adequate justification for these uses. We offer recommendations for development/validation of other condition-specific classification systems and discuss the potential need for a generic gross motor function classification system. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The Gross Motor Function Classification System should not be used outside cerebral palsy or as an outcome measure. The authors provide recommendations for development and validation of condition-specific or generic classification systems.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".