Relation between spasticity and strength in individuals with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relation between spasticity and strength in individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) has not been extensively researched. Knee and ankle spasticity and strength were quantified in a retrospective analysis of 60 individuals with spastic diplegic CP (mean age 12 years, range 3 to 38) and a group of 50 individuals without disabilities (WD group; mean age 12 years, range 4 to 36). Spasticity was measured using a KinCom dynamometer that stretched the passive knee flexors or ankle plantarflexors at different speeds and recorded the amount of resistive torques. For the strength tests, the participant performed a maximum contraction of the knee flexors/extensors and ankle plantarflexors/dorsiflexors throughout their range of motion at a speed of 10/s on the dynamometer. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine if a relation existed between spasticity and strength within the same muscle group and in opposing muscle groups at the knee and ankle joints. A t‐test was performed to determine if greater spasticity and less strength existed at the ankles compared with the knees in those with CP. Results show that there was no relation between spasticity and strength either within the same muscle group or at opposing muscle groups at the knee and ankle joints in persons with CP. Individuals with spastic diplegic CP were more involved (greater spasticity, less strength) distally at the ankles compared with the knees. The findings conflict with the literature, which contains several assumptions, one of which is that a spastic muscle is a strong muscle and that spasticity causes weakness in the opposing muscle group. We found no relation between spasticity and strength in individuals with CP. Our findings support the literature, which states that individuals with spastic diplegic CP are more involved distally compared with proximally in the lower extremities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".