Primena kanadskog instrumenta za merenje okupacione performanse kod osoba sa mišićnim distrofijama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Muscular dystrophies are genetically conditioned diseases, which are manifested by weakness, pseudo-hypertrophy, and muscle atrophy. People with muscular dystrophy may have difficulty in participating in occupational activities that are common to their peers. The Aim: The aim of this study was to define the difficulties in the occupational performances that people with muscular dystrophy encounter during their everyday functioning. Material and Methods: The prospective study included 15 male examinees with muscular dystrophy (15.2 ± 7.65 years), who are members of the Association of Dystrophics of the South Bačka District. Everyone has previously signed an informed consent to participate in it. The study is conducted from 10.07.2018. until 01.09.2018., with prior notification of the person, parent/guardian, and with the consent of the Ethics Committee of the Association of Dystrophics of the South Bačka District. Stratification of the sample was made according to age, type of basic disease, and level of occupational performance - according to the Canadian Occupational Measure (COPM) instrument and other demographic factors. Results: Differences in mean values obtained from the COPM questionnaire were made: poorer performances and satisfaction by performing occupational performances achieved respondents who belonged to the age category of 11-20 years, lived in an urban environment and who were diagnosed with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. These differences weren't statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study have shown that there are limitations in performing self-care, mobility and socialization activities in people with muscular dystrophy. It is necessary to use questionnaires for evaluation of the occupational performances in people with muscular dystrophy, in order to define the difficulties they encounter in their daily functioning and the rehabilitation treatment planning, which is very significant in the client-centred model.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".