Comparison of intrathecal baclofen pump insertion and selective dorsal rhizotomy for nonambulatory children with predominantly spastic cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In nonambulatory children with predominantly spastic cerebral palsy (CP), the authors compared care needs, symptom burden, and complications after surgical treatment with either intrathecal baclofen (ITB) pump insertion or selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR). The patients were treated at two Canadian centers with variability in practice pertaining to these surgical options. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of nonambulatory children with predominantly spastic quadriplegic or diplegic CP who underwent treatment with ITB or SDR. These two strategies were retrospectively assessed by comparing patient data from the two treatment groups for demographic characteristics, outcomes, and complications. A partial least-squares analysis was performed to identify patient phenotypes associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty patients who underwent ITB and 30 patients who underwent SDR were included for analysis. Patients in the ITB group were older and had lower baseline functional status, with greater burdens of spasticity, dystonia, pain, deformity, bladder dysfunction, and epilepsy than patients in the SDR group. In addition, children who underwent SDR had lower Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels and were less likely to experience complications than those who underwent ITB. However, children treated with SDR had fewer improvements in pain than children treated with ITB. A single significant latent variable explaining 88% of the variance in the data was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable baseline differences exist within this pediatric CP patient population. Factors specific to individual children must be taken into account when determining whether ITB or SDR is the appropriate 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".