MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409646710 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2025.2493227

Lower limb orthopedic surgery in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy is well captured using individualized Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) goals

2025· article· en· W4409646710 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Carman, Sarah Wall, Kirsty Stewart, Anita J. Mudge, Matthias W. Axt

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyGoal Attainment ScalingOrthopedic surgeryOccupational therapyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationScale (ratio)MedicinePsychologyActivities of daily livingRehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To investigate individualized goals set and goal attainment following lower limb orthopedic surgery for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP).Materials and method Retrospective chart review. Individualized goals set prior to orthopedic surgery using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and/or Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) with follow-up within 18 months post-surgery were analyzed. Goals were categorized into functional mobility, leisure, self-care and productivity.Results 44 children met the inclusion criteria, mean age 12.5 years (range 4.8–18.2yrs, SD 3.9), GMFCS I = 6, II = 19, III = 6, IV = 9, V = 4. In total 111 goals were analyzed, n = 79 COPM goals and n = 32 GAS goals. Clinically and statistically positive change was demonstrated in the COPM post-surgery, with mean changes of 3.74 (<0.0001) for performance and 4.26 (p < 0.0001) for satisfaction with performance. Of the 32 GAS goals set, 22 had an expected to much greater than expected outcome.Conclusions COPM goals demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvement in performance and satisfaction with performance for children of all GMFCS levels post-surgery. GAS goals were not universally met. This study highlights the importance of individualized goal setting and recommends further evaluation into non-achievement of goals and the relationship between goal outcomes and surgery type.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207