Relationship between lower limb strength and walking capacities in children with spastic bilateral cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluate the relationship between different walking capacities and muscle strength in children with bilateral cerebral palsy (BCP) and assess these relationships in stronger and weaker children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two children with spastic BCP were included. All participants walked under three speed conditions: comfortable, fast, and for a longer period (6 min). Walking speeds, Energy Expenditure Index (EEI), and lower limb muscle strength were measured. A global strength index (GSI) was computed as the sum of each muscle group strength. Pearson's coefficient and regression models were computed between walking capacities and the GSI. RESULTS: GSI was correlated with the EEI and all walking speeds. Logarithmic regressions models explained between 24 and 34% of the variance of walking capacities. Then, the group was divided in two subgroups (weaker and stronger children). GSI was correlated with comfortable and endurance waking speed in weaker children, but not in stronger children. CONCLUSION: This study reports logarithmic relationship between muscle strength and walking capacities in children with BCP. The subgroup analysis implies that muscle strength has an impact on walking capacities solely in weaker children, suggesting that muscle strength must be preserved and reinforced in interventions targeting motor function in weaker children with BCP.Implications for rehabilitationIn a sample of children with spastic bilateral cerebral palsy, this study shows that global muscle strength is associated with walking capacities and the relationship seems more complex than linear.Based on the results, interventions should focus on maintaining or improving muscle strength in weaker children as no association was observed between muscle strength and walking capacities in stronger children.In stronger children, intervention should focus on factors other than muscle strength as it does not influence walking capacities.Based on this study, a more accurate screening of children who could benefit from strength training could be completed by initial global muscle strength.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".