Motor and Oculomotor Performance Assessment in Infants in Primary Health Care Level: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Assess the oculomotor and motor performance of infants without neonatal risk factors. Method: Twenty six term infants without neonatal risk factors were selected. Infants were six months old when they had their motor and oculomotor performance assessed respectively using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and the Optokinetic Nystagmus, this latter was assessed using a drum with white and black stripes interspersed with each other. Ratings were recorded on video and motor and oculomotor performances were assessed and scored by two evaluators who have been trained and are blind to the study. For data analysis, X2 for reliability analysis and the Mann Whitney test for correlation of continuous variables. The significance level was 5% for every analysis. Results: It was found 15% of assessed infants showed motor development abnormalities and only one infant showed no Optokinetic Nystagmus movement. Conclusion: Term infants have abnormal motor performance and can present absence of optokinetic nystagmus.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".