Benefits of a Dance Intervention on Balance in Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cerebral palsy (CP) impacts motor functions such as balance, limits of stability and walking, and may also affect other functions such as attention and rhythm production. Motor and non-motor deficits lead to difficulties in daily life activities. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a dance intervention on balance in adolescents with CP. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the effects of this intervention on walking speed, attention, and rhythm production. METHODS: A pre-post design study with a double baseline was conducted on ten adolescents with CP in order to assess the effects of a 10-week dance intervention. The dance intervention focused on improving balance and limits of stability. Outcomes on static and dynamic balance were evaluated with clinical and laboratory tests before and after the intervention. Walking speed, attention, and rhythm production were also evaluated before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Balance improved after the dance intervention as assessed with both the clinical tests and a laboratory test. Rhythm production also improved after the dance intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a 10-week dance intervention is an effective activity to improve static and dynamic balance as well as rhythmic production in adolescents with CP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".