Pilot Evaluation of a School-Based Programme Focused on Activity, Fitness, and Function among Children with Cerebral Palsy at GMFCS Level IV: Single-Subject Research Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Children with cerebral palsy (CP) who function at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) Level IV have difficulty achieving sufficient levels of physical activity to promote fitness. The purpose of this pilot evaluation was to investigate the practicability and impact of a school-based supported physical activity programme, using adaptive bicycles, on cardiorespiratory fitness and gross motor function among children with CP at GMFCS Level IV. Method: We used a single-subject, A–B–A–B research design replicated across three participants aged 8–14 years with CP at GMFCS Level IV who attended three different schools. Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed weekly during all study phases using the energy expenditure index (EEI). Gross motor function was assessed using the Gross Motor Function Measure–66 (GMFM–66) and goal attainment scaling (GAS). During the intervention phases, an adaptive bicycle-riding programme was carried out daily at school for up to 30 minutes. Results: One participant demonstrated significant improvement on the EEI. All participants demonstrated improvement in gross motor function as determined by the GMFM–66 and GAS. Insights were garnered pertaining to the design for large-scale future studies. Conclusions: This pilot evaluation supports further investigation of school-based adaptive bicycle-riding programmes for children who have CP at GMFCS Level IV.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".