Inpatient Exergames for Children with Cerebral Palsy following Lower Extremity Orthopedic Surgery: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Evaluate the feasibility of implementing cycling-based exergames for children with cerebral palsy (CP) following lower extremity orthopedic surgery and explore its impact on pain and well-being.Methods: Ten children with CP were recruited; the first five received physiotherapy (comparison) and next five received fifteen exergame sessions over 3 weeks and physiotherapy (case) (NCT0376907). Feasibility indicators evaluated recruitment, questionnaire and exergame completion. Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference Scale (PPIS), and KIDSCREEN-27 were administered. Wilcoxon signed-rank and effect size (r) tests evaluated within-group differences and between-group differences were assessed using Mann–Whitney U tests.Results: All feasibility indicators were met. Large effects for improved case group pain were identified (FPS-R r = 0.60, PPIS r = 0.58), as well as significant improvement in KIDSCREEN-27 total (U = 0.50, p = .05) and psychological well-being (U = 3.00, p = .01) scores, favoring the case group.Conclusions: Incorporating pediatric exergames is feasible and demonstrates potential for improving pain and well-being.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".