Identifying Opportunities for Early Detection of Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate assessment and referral practices for the early detection and diagnosis of children at risk for or with cerebral palsy (CP) by health care and education providers in Maryland and Delaware. A secondary aim was to identify barriers for using early detection tools and identify opportunities for change to support early diagnosis and improve care. Seventy-two participants answered ≥ 50% of the survey questions. Most were occupational or physical therapists (86%) working in early intervention (61%). Eighty-eight percent indicated awareness that CP can be diagnosed by 12 months. Though 86% stated they typically suspect a diagnosis of CP between 0 and 12 months, only 19% reported that their patients received a CP diagnosis < 12 months. The Developmental Assessment of Young Children (73%) and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (59%) were used most. Many respondents indicated never using magnetic resonance imaging (70%), the General Movements Assessment (87%), or the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Exam (69%). Participants identified clinical signs and symptoms prompting a referral for the diagnostic assessment of CP, most commonly stiffness in legs (95%), excessive head lag (93%), and persistent fisting (92%). Policy and organizational change, clinician education, and training are needed to support the implementation of CP early detection guidelines.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".