Brachial Plexus Birth Injury and Gross Motor Function: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI) is a neonatal injury occurring in 1.24 in 1,000 live births. The result of this injury on arm function is highly variable and has been the subject of many studies. However, the effect of BPBI on the development of overall gross motor function is less well studied. We aimed to synthesize the available literature on posture, balance and coordination, and gait in children with BPBI. Method: A scoping review was conducted by searching five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and Web of Science) and the grey literature for all study types related to our question. Studies unrelated to birth injuries, animal studies, and literature reviews were excluded. Three researchers independently screened the studies during two rounds of review (title/abstract and full-text). Results: Of the 2,728 articles found, 16 articles were included. Overall, the average study quality was 0.90 out of 1.00. These studies suggest that observed postural deficits in BPBI are secondary to asymmetry rather than true scoliosis. Further, the asymmetrical nature of the injury results in both balance deficits and gait abnormalities when compared to healthy age-matched populations. Conclusions: The scoping review demonstrates that while there are obvious consequences to overall motor function and development in BPBI, these effects are likely under-studied. Further research should focus on understanding overall developmental differences in children with BPBI. Expanding on this information could possibly allow for earlier intervention, extended scope of physiotherapy, and better functional outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".