MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physiotherapy interventions for head and trunk control in children with developmental disabilities: A scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4296712214 on OpenAlexaff
Shristi Shakya, Shradha S. Parsekar, Selvam Ramachandran, Shamantha Madapura S., Harikishan Balakrishna Shetty, Dana Anaby, Sivakumar Gopalakrishna, Vigneshwaran Venkatesan, Bhamini Krishna Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen peer reviewTrunkPsychological interventionPlant biologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineProtocol (science)Physical therapyAlternative medicineBiologyNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Head and trunk control is prerequisite skill that maximizes engagement and participation in one’s environment by integrating vision, oromotor skill, arm control and respiration. Various physiotherapy and technology-based interventions have been utilized to facilitate head and trunk control in children with developmental disabilities. This scoping review is planned to map and summarize existing studies from the scientific literature on physiotherapy and technology-based interventions for head and trunk control in children with developmental disabilities. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> The scoping review will utilize the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. The review will cover studies including children and adolescents aged between two years and 17 years 11 months 29 days, with developmental disabilities where in child finds difficulty aligning head and trunk in sitting position, against gravity, for more than a minute. We will include randomized controlled trial (RCT), non-RCT, quasi-experimental trial, and systematic reviews that have employed physiotherapy and technology-based interventions. Database-specific search strategy will be used to search records in Medline (PubMed and Web of Science), Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, various grey literatures and clinical-trial registries will be searched. Two reviewers, independently, will screen and extract the data. Tables and visual representations will be utilized to present the extracted data. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Registration details:</ns4:bold> The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework, DOI: <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns5="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns5:href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B3RSU">10.17605/OSF.IO/B3RSU</ns4:ext-link> (22 <ns4:sup>nd</ns4:sup> August 2022) </ns4:p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207