Motor development curve from 0 to 12 months in infants born preterm
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it