Looking beyond Body Structure and Function: ICF Foci and Who Is Being Assessed in Research about Adolescents and Young Adults with Cerebral Palsy—A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to summarize the ICF foci, looking beyond body structures and function, and to analyze who has been assessed in research about adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with CP in the phase of transition to adulthood. METHOD: Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched using terms related to cerebral palsy, adolescents/young adults, health development, participation, and independence. Studies including youth with CP (13-30 years old) published in English from 2014 to 2021 were considered. The methods of assessment reported in the included studies were used to identify the ICF foci and who was assessed. RESULTS: In this study, 86 studies were reviewed. The main ICF foci are activity and participation (51% of the studies), personal factors (23%), ICF not covered (14%), ICF not defined (9%), with environmental factors being the least focused ICF component (3%). Most studies assessed AYAs directly (49% of studies). CONCLUSIONS: Activity- and participation-related constructs are the leading research focus of studies, and more attention is needed concerning environmental factors. AYAs are the main source of information, and the perspectives of other key figures are also being valued. To bridge the gap between child and adult health care, a broader view of health development and approaches to explore AYA developmental issues must be taken.
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 | 0.042 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".