Treatment for Children with Upper-Limb Differences in Various Parts of the World: Preliminary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction To support clinicians who treat children with upper-limb differences, we must first understand how these children are treated around the world. Study Design A descriptive survey was carried out in this study. Objectives The aim was to describe how treatment for children with upper-limb difference is provided in different parts of the world. Methods A web-based survey was used to gather data. The survey was shared on the Handsmart website, through providers and members using snowball sampling. Results Sixty-eight respondents from 18 countries, with most being occupational therapists and prosthetists, participated. All respondents reported that they provide prosthetic treatment and most fit a passive prosthesis before 1 year of age. Respondents from 13 countries reported having governmental funding for the provision of care for people with upper-limb loss. Intervention is guided by the presentation of the limb as well as availability of funding and other resources. In 12 countries, no treatment other than fitting of prostheses is provided for the children. The children who do not receive a prosthesis continue to see an occupational or physical therapist for other treatment (other devices, follow-up). Respondents stated that they would like to see clear treatment guidelines used by multidisciplinary teams to fit children and that treatment should include regular follow-up. Conclusions Children are treated differently in various parts of the world based on different funding, family support, and therapy resources. Further studies should encompass a geographically representative sample of children’s clinics. Clinical Relevance This study provides information regarding treatment practices for children with upper-limb loss/difference in various parts of the world; prosthetic treatment is common for children, although ages for fitting vary among clinics and countries. Results will contribute by supporting clinicians to provide better treatment for children with upper-limb loss/difference.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".