Physical performance outcome measures used in exercise interventions for adults with childhood-onset disabilities: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with childhood-onset disabilities face unique physical and social challenges in adulthood. Exercise interventions may improve physical performance in children, but there is a lack of research on adults. OBJECTIVE: To describe studies that investigate exercise interventions and to evaluate the quality of physical performance outcome measures for adults with childhood-onset disabilities. METHODS: Eligible studies reported on exercise interventions for adults (ages 16+) with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, or acquired brain injuries. Only randomized controlled trials published in English from 2008 to 2019 were included. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and abstracted data. RESULTS: This scoping review included 4 trials reporting on cerebral palsy only. Three strength training programs found significant improvements in gait, and one mixed training program found significant improvements in strength and fitness. Only two outcome measures used are valid/reliable for adults (6 Minute Walk Test and Borg-20 Grades). CONCLUSION: Certain interventions may improve physical performance, but there is a lack of research on appropriate exercise interventions and physical performance outcome measures for adults with childhood-onset disabilities. Different exercise interventions should be investigated using larger sample sizes and outcome measures should be standardized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".