Functional electrical stimulation cycling, goal‐directed training, and adapted cycling for children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To test the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling, goal-directed training, and adapted cycling, compared with usual care, to improve function in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: The intervention was delivered between 2017 and 2019 and included three sessions per week for 8 weeks (2×1h sessions at a children's hospital, and 1h home programme/week). Hospital sessions included 30 minutes of FES cycling and 30 minutes of goal-directed training. Home programmes included goal-directed training and adapted cycling. The comparison group continued usual care. Primary outcomes were gross motor function assessed by the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) and goal performance/satisfaction assessed using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Secondary outcomes were sit-to-stand and activity capacity, participation in home, school, and community activities, and power output. Linear regression was used to determine the between-group mean difference immediately post-training completion after adjusting for baseline scores. RESULTS: This randomized controlled trial included 21 participants (mean age=10y 3mo, standard deviation [SD]=3y; Gross Motor Function Classification System level: II=7, III=6, IV=8) who were randomized to the intervention (n=11) or usual care group (n=10). Between-group differences at T2 favoured the intervention group for GMFM-88 (mean difference=7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3-12.6; p=0.007), GMFM-66 (mean difference=5.9; 95% CI: 3.1-8.8; p<0.001), COPM performance (mean difference=4.4; 95% CI: 3.9-5.3; p<0.001) and satisfaction (mean difference=5.2; 95% CI: 4.0-6.4; p<0.001). INTERPRETATION: Children with CP achieved meaningful functional improvements after FES cycling, goal-directed training, and adapted cycling training. Cycling programmes for children with CP should be individualized and goal directed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".