Chronicling Research and Practice Evolution in Pediatric Physical Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To observe research and practice trends in the journal, Pediatric Physical Therapy, as a proxy for the field. METHODS: All issues of Pediatric Physical Therapy published from 1989 to 2019 were chronicled and summarized. Data were extracted regarding variables related to the issues and individual articles. RESULTS: The most common diagnosis studied was cerebral palsy. The proportion of studies involving middle childhood and adolescent-aged participants increased over time. Cohort studies and exercise were the most common study type and intervention studied, respectively. The proportion of scientific content in the journal increased. CONCLUSION: It is evident that pediatric physical therapy research has evolved over the past 30 years, both in rigor of articles published and in breadth of populations studied. WHAT THIS ADDS TO THE EVIDENCE: This review adds an in-depth evaluation of trends in the literature, facilitating the profession's continued growth.
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 | 0.058 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".