Assessing advanced motor skills in young people with cerebral palsy in GMFCS Levels I and II: Rasch analysis of the challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
feedback, such as additions of new goals missing from the inventory, and clarity and phrasing of goals.Results: All parents identified "body structure and function" goals, with more than 75% of parents selecting reduction in muscle tone and increased range of movements in the upper and lower extremities.More than 50% of parents identified activity goals related to ease of caregiving.The parents also identified engagement in functional activities, such as mobility (55%), specifically therapeutic walking (60%), standing (50%), and transfers (50%).Participation goals were identified by less than 5% of parents.There were two activity goals suggested by parents and three participation goals suggested by healthcare professionals that were missing from the inventory.Conclusions/Significance: The inventory may be a helpful tool to identify and facilitate a discussion about goal setting between healthcare professionals and families in the context of BoNT-A treatment.A future study is needed to conduct qualitative interviews and better understand the information that families may require about setting goals during BoNT-A treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".