Rehabilitation therapies in Rett syndrome across the lifespan: A scoping review of human and animal studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a scoping review of the evidence for therapeutic interventions to manage functional impairments associated with Rett syndrome (RTT) throughout the lifespan. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched systematically up to December 2019. Two investigators independently reviewed all search results and extracted those that met the inclusion criteria. Human and animal model studies pertaining to therapies that increase functional ability or treat RTT-associated symptoms in all age groups were included. Relevant studies were grouped into intervention categories and rated using the Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Demographics of participants, interventions, and outcomes were summarized. RESULTS: Ninety-one articles representing 88 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 80 were human clinical studies and eight were studies using animal models. Study designs were primarily case series and only six studies involved participants above the age of 40. CONCLUSION: A small number of rigorously studied rehabilitation interventions have been published. Published studies aim to address a wide variety of functional impairments. Research regarding implementation of therapies for older patients with RTT is lacking and requires further exploration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".