Motor development curve from 0 to 12 months in infants born preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To trace a reference curve for motor development from birth up to 12 months of corrected chronological age in infants born preterm and low birth weight. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with a sample of 308 preterm infants (53% boys) weighing < 2500 g at birth. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was used for motor development assessment. RESULTS: Comparing the motor performance of preterm infants with infants from a standardized sample on the AIMS, it was found that, except for the age group of the newborn, preterm infants showed lower motor development scores in comparison with the AIMS normative sample in all age groups between 1 and 12 months. The curve of motor development showed a continuous increase in the number of motor skills of preterm infants during their first 12 months of age. However, the average of motor acquisitions of preterm infants showed a nonlinear pattern with a standard indicator of stabilization between 8 and 10 months of age. CONCLUSION: Preterm infants, 1-12 months of age, showed motor development AIMS scores lower than the standards established in the normative sample. The findings may contribute as norm-reference for assessing the motor development of preterm infants in follow-up programmes in developing countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".