MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395683759 · doi:10.3390/children11050515

Identifying Opportunities for Early Detection of Cerebral Palsy

2024· article· en· W4395683759 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany Hornby, Ginny Paleg, Sîan A. Williams, Álvaro Hidalgo‐Robles, Roslyn Livingstone, P Wright, Alice Taylor, M. Wade Shrader

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyMedicineReferralIntervention (counseling)PediatricsPhysical therapySuspectFamily medicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207