Efficacy of Sensory Interventions on School Participation of Children With Sensory Disorders: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research demonstrates lower school participation in children with sensory disorders. However, the scientific body of evidence supporting existing sensory intervention modalities is difficult to tackle. More specifically, the literature appears poorly organized, with a highly variable terminology, often with nonoverlapping definitions and lack of good keywords classification that would help organize the diversity of approaches. This systematic review organizes the body of evidence for 3 specific approaches (sensory based, sensorimotor, and sensory integration) and questions their efficacy in improving school participation for children with sensory disorders. Two methods were compared: first, a standard systematic review of the literature in 3 databases using appropriate keywords and descriptors, then an original method based on forward and backward citation connections. A total of 28 studies were retrieved, of which only 7 used the standard method for systematic reviews. For sensory-based approaches, the efficacy of weighted-vest varies according to different factors such as the protocol of use. For sensorimotor approaches, the efficacy of therapy balls, air cushions, platform swing, and physical exercise varies according to the child's sensory characteristics. The efficacy of the sensory integration approach remains mixed across studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".