High-intensive physical rehabilitation approach in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury during subacute phase (REHABILITY): a feasibility study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While principles of neuroplasticity and motor learning emphasise the potential of high dosage of physical rehabilitation in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI) during the subacute phase, we lack empirical evidence to demonstrate its impact in terms of meaningful outcomes. Clinical research is needed to investigate adequate dosage of physical rehabilitation and its effects on outcomes with reliable and validated outcome measurements. In this study we will investigate the feasibility of a highly intensive physical rehabilitation intervention and outcomes with reliable and valid outcome measurements. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our study with a prospective case-series design will evaluate (1) The safety and feasibility of a high-intensive physical rehabilitation programme to improve functioning and participation in children and adolescents with ABI, and (2) The feasibility of a core set of clinical outcome measures to assess recovery on relevant International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health domains during the subacute phase. We aim to include 10-15 children and adolescents aged 6-20 years with moderate-severe ABI during subacute rehabilitation in a specialised youth department for inpatient rehabilitation in The Netherlands. In the rehabilitation programme, we aim at a highly intensive approach of 3-5 hours physical rehabilitation per day during inpatient rehabilitation. Frequent and systematic assessment (baseline, each consecutive 6 weeks -if applicable- and at discharge) through a core set of outcome measures will provide insights into the degree of recovery of motor and cognitive functioning. We use descriptive and inferential statistics and thematic content analysis for analysis of the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Research Committee of the University Medical Hospital, Utrecht (reference number: 23U-0628). We aim to disseminate our findings in peer-reviewed journals and present at national and international conferences.
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 | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".