Effects of Botulinum Toxin Treatment in Nonambulatory Children and Adolescents With Cerebral Palsy: Understanding Parents’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and adolescents with cerebral palsy often receive botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) to manage hypertonia. This qualitative study aimed to describe and categorize BoNT-A effects that parents observed using the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. An interpretive description methodology was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 parents of nonambulatory young people with cerebral palsy (mean age 10.2 years, SD 3.9, 7 males) who received BoNT-A. Parents reported BoNT-A effects on each ICF category. Through interpretive description, an overall theme emerged: "finding the right path to do what is best." Five subthemes included (1) Parents' hopes, (2) Parents' goals for their child, (3) Parents' learning what works, (4) Parents' reflections, and (5) Parents' destination. This study provides insights into parents' journeys of how they learned about BoNT-A effects in their child, which helped them to identify goals for future treatment.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".