A Scoping Review of Physical Therapy Interventions for Childhood Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Children and adolescents undergoing cancer treatment are at high risk of developing serious adverse effects, many of which respond to physical therapy (PT). This scoping review aims to (1) outline the state of the research involving PT for children with cancer and (2) identify gaps in the literature for future research. Method: From January 2002 to October 2017, we conducted electronic searches of three major databases and conference proceedings and checked references of screened articles. Results: A total of 12 articles were included in the review: one randomized controlled trial, one pilot randomized trial, five pilot or feasibility studies, two prospective studies, one case series, one case report, and one retrospective study. The research to date supports the feasibility of PT interventions for children with cancer, but the current evidence is not yet at a level to inform clinical practice. To better elucidate treatment protocols and assess their benefits for tumour-specific impairments, research needs to examine the effects of PT on specific impairments or for specific cancer tumour types. Conclusions: Collaborative efforts to conduct multi-centre trials are needed to further the field of paediatric oncology PT.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".