MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950753414 · doi:10.3138/ptc-2018-68

Evidence-Based Practice: Physiotherapy for Children and Adolescents with Motor Symptoms of Conversion Disorder

2019· article· en· W2950753414 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Giulia Mesaroli, Catherine Munns, Claire De Souza

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonMedicineConversion disorderPhysical therapyPsychiatryPediatricsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical Case: A boy aged 14 years with conversion disorder who presented with an ataxic gait pattern experienced complete symptom resolution after engaging in physiotherapy (PT) as part of interdisciplinary treatment. Clinical Question: Is there evidence to support the use of PT in children and adolescents with motor symptoms of conversion disorder? Evidence: All the extant paediatric literature consists of case studies and case series. Some exciting research has been published in the adult literature that suggests the potential positive benefits of PT. Limitation of the Evidence and Future Research: The paediatric literature is limited in quantity and quality. In the adult literature, most studies are limited in that they do not control for the type of motor symptoms and do not evaluate PT independent of interdisciplinary treatment. In future research, it would be pertinent to (1) evaluate PT independent of interdisciplinary treatment, (2) control for the type of motor symptoms, and (3) describe theoretical models. Recommendation for Clinical Question: Expert consensus and emerging evidence suggest that PT may be beneficial in adults with conversion disorder, but the evidence in the paediatric population is insufficient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207