Improvements in Upper Extremity Function Following Intensive Training Are Independent of Corticospinal Tract Organization in Children With Unilateral Spastic Cerebral Palsy: A Clinical Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Intensive training of the more affected upper extremity (UE) has been shown to be effective for children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy (USCP). Two types of UE training have been particularly successful: Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (CIMT) and Bimanual training. Reorganization of the corticospinal tract (CST) early during development often occurs in USCP. Prior studies have suggested that children with an ipsilateral CST controlling the affected UE may improve less following CIMT than children with a contralateral CST. We tested the hypothesis that improvements in UE function after intensive training depend on CST laterality. Study Participants and Setting: Eighty-two children with USCP, age 5 years 10 months to 17 years, University laboratory setting. Materials/Methods: Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to determine each child's CST connectivity pattern. Children were stratified by age, sex, baseline hand function and CST connectivity pattern, and randomized to receive either CIMT or Bimanual training, each of which were provided in a day-camp setting (90 h). Hand function was tested before, immediately and 6 months after the intervention with the Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function, the Assisting Hand Assessment, the Box and Block Test, and ABILHAND-Kids. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used to track goal achievement and the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory was used to assess functioning in daily living activities at home. Results: In contrast to our hypothesis, participants had statistically similar improvements for both CIMT and Bimanual training for all measures independent of their CST connectivity pattern (contralateral, ipsilateral, or bilateral) ( p < 0.05 in all cases). Conclusions/Significance: The efficacy of CIMT and Bimanual training is independent of CST connectivity pattern. Children with an ipsilateral CST, previously thought to be maladaptive, have the capacity to improve as well as children with a contralateral or bilateral CST following intensive CIMT or Bimanual training. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT02918890.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".