Intrathecal baclofen therapy in children: an analysis of individualized goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy improves performance and performance satisfaction in goal areas identified by patients' parents. METHOD: This study formed part of an ongoing multicentre national audit involving six paediatric ITB pump implant centres across Australia. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was the primary outcome measure utilized at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months after pump implants in paediatric patients receiving ITB therapy for the first time between 31st December 2009 and 31st December 2014. RESULTS: Twenty-five children had goals identified (mean age 11y 1mo), 19 had a diagnosis of cerebral palsy and 22 were at Gross Motor Function Classification System level IV, V, or equivalent. Strong evidence for an improvement in goal performance (2.33, 95% CI 1.70, 2.96, p<0.001) and performance satisfaction scores (3.08, 95% CI 2.28, 3.88, p<0.001) were demonstrated at 6 months, compared to baseline. The differences were clinically significant and were sustained to 12 months. INTERPRETATION: ITB therapy in paediatric patients with hypertonia results in clinically significant improvements in average performance and performance satisfaction scores. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The most commonly identified goals of parents of children treated with intrathecal (ITB) therapy were: improving ease of dressing, positioning, and transfers. ITB therapy is effective in improving performance and performance satisfaction in children with hypertonia. Score improvements are mainly evident within the first 6 months of therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".