Upper Limb Motor Planning in Individuals with Cerebral Palsy Aged between 3 and 21 Years Old: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with cerebral palsy have difficulties performing activities of daily living. Beyond motor execution impairments, they exhibit motor planning deficits contributing to their difficulties. The objective of this review is to synthesize the behavioral evidence of motor planning deficits during an upper limb motor task in children, adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy aged between 3 and 21 years. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were: (1) including individuals with cerebral palsy from 3 to 21 years old; (2) assessing upper limb motor planning. Six databases were screened. The quality assessment of the studies was performed. RESULTS: Forty-six studies and 686 participants were included. Five articles have been identified as very high quality, 12 as high, 20 as moderate, six as low, three as very low. Force planning studies reported a deficit for the more affected hand but adequate performances for the less affected hand. Object-manipulation studies reported hand posture planning deficits irrespectively of the hand assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Motor planning deficits has been shown in the more affected hand for force scaling, while the results for other variables showed overall deficits. Hence, variables affected by motor planning deficits in both hands should be considered in children with cerebral palsy to optimize intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".