MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016683964 · doi:10.1080/01942638.2020.1754319

Participation among Children with Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita: A Scoping Review

2020· review· en· W3016683964 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Elfassy, Sarah Cachecho, Laurie Snider, Noémi Dahan‐Oliel

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthrogryposis multiplex congenitaArthrogryposisMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To explore what is currently known regarding participation among children and youth with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita (AMC) using empirical studies, gray literature, and YouTube videos. The secondary objectives included identifying activity types, outcome measures used, interventions provided, and barriers and facilitators to participation. METHOD: Empirical studies and gray literature were searched through electronic databases and videos were searched on YouTube. Articles and videos pertaining to participation and youth with AMC were included by two reviewers. Data regarding activity types, location, outcomes measures, interventions, and barriers and facilitators to participation was extracted. Data was critically appraised using specific evaluation criteria. RESULT: Eleven empirical studies, six gray literature articles and 71 videos met the inclusion criteria. The most common activity types reported in the empirical studies and YouTube videos were active-physical, social, and skill-based activities. Outcome measures included evaluations and questionnaires, none of which were designed to address participation. Interventions did not target participation although the environments could affect participation. CONCLUSION: The paucity of research indicates a need for future studies of participation in this population. Interventions should target participation and address environmental barriers. Videos provide insight for clinicians, youth, and families to help promote participation in the natural environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207