Spasticity reduction in children with cerebral palsy is not associated with reduced energy consumption during walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The average energy consumption during walking of children with cerebral palsy (CP) is over two times of that of typically developing (TD) children and fatigue is one of the top complaints of children with CP and their families. Spasticity has been theorized to contribute to increased energy consumption during walking in CP, but its role remains unclear. Methods We retrospectively compared the energy consumption of walking in children with diplegic CP before and after selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR), a surgery that reduces spasticity. A control group of participants with CP who also underwent gait analysis but did not undergo SDR was matched to the SDR group by pre-surgery age, spasticity, and energy consumption. Energy consumption and spasticity were compared at baseline and follow-up for both groups. Findings As expected, the SDR group has a significantly greater decrease (−44%) in spasticity compared to matched peers with CP who did not undergo SDR (−16%, P <0.001). While both groups had a reduction in energy consumption between visits (12 % SDR and 14% no-SDR), there was no difference in the change in energy consumption between groups ( P =0.4). Interpretation: Reducing spasticity did not contribute to greater reductions in energy consumption, suggesting that spasticity has minimal impact on elevated energy consumption during walking for children with CP. Energy consumption and spasticity decrease with age among children with CP. Identifying matched control groups of peers with CP is critical for research involving children with CP to account for changes due to development. Highlights Energy consumption is not reduced after rhizotomy compared to matched peers Spasticity has minimal contribution to elevated energy during walking Matched control groups are critical in cerebral palsy research
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".