CANINE-ASSISTED THERAPY AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN DISABLED CHILDREN: A PILOT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Materials and methods. Three groups of mentally disabled children of different age participated in dog-assisted therapy sessions twice per week for two months. Motor skills evaluation was based on the Bruininks-Oseretsky motor skills evaluation test (short version). Isometric torso muscle endurance tests were based on Ito, McIntosh and McGill. The ability to focus and memorise exercises and the ability to understand and perform them was also evaluated. Results. Movement perception and performance, as well as ability to focus and memorise the movement sequel improved after canine-assisted exercise sessions. The most significant changes in performance were observed in the torso muscle static endurance test, push-ups, fine motor skills, and coordination (p<0.001). Conclusion. Dogs can be successfully used as motivation for the performance of various task or to lower psychological tension and anxiety during exercise sessions. It is hoped that the results of this study will be used for the development of formal dog-assisted therapy guidelines for use in physical therapy with mentally disabled children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".