Mirror movements after bimanual intensive therapy in children with unilateral cerebral palsy: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate potential changes in mirror movements after Hand and Arm Bimanual Intensive Therapy Including Lower Extremity (HABIT-ILE) training in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Thirty-one children with unilateral CP (mean age 9 years 4 months, SD 4 years 3 months; range 5 years 4 months-17 years 3 months; 14 females, 17 males) were randomized to either a control or treatment group. After allocation, children were assessed three times: before (T1, baseline) and after (T2) a 2-week interval and again at 3 months after T1 (T3) as follow-up. Between T1 and T2, the treatment group received 90 hours of HABIT-ILE training, while the control group continued their customary treatment. Mirror movements were assessed in all children using the Woods and Teuber Scale, as well as the Assisting Hand Assessment, Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. RESULTS: Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated a significant decrease in mirror movements in the more-affected (mean difference = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51-1.42; p < 0.001) and less-affected (mean difference = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.37-1.0; p < 0.001) hands of children after HABIT-ILE; these improvements were maintained at the 3-month follow-up. Moreover, the mirror movement changes observed at the second assessment (T2) were inversely correlated with changes in the assessment of activities of daily living, especially in the less-affected hand. INTERPRETATION: HABIT-ILE decreased the intensity of mirror movements in a group of children with CP. Furthermore, mirror movement changes were associated with bimanual performance and activities of daily living in these children. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The intensity of mirror movements decreased in both hands after 2 weeks of Hand and Arm Bimanual Intensive Therapy Including Lower Extremity (HABIT-ILE) training. Mirror movement changes were maintained at the 3-month follow-up after HABIT-ILE. Mirror movement changes were associated with improvements in bimanual performance and activities of daily living.
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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".