New reference values must be established for the Alberta Infant Motor Scales for accurate identification of infants at risk for motor developmental delay in Flanders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) is a reliable and valid assessment tool to evaluate the motor performance from birth to independent walking. This study aimed to determine whether the Canadian reference values on the AIMS from 1990-1992 are still useful tor Flemish infants, assessed in 2007-2010. Additionally, the association between motor performance and sleep and play positioning will be determined. METHODS: A total of 270 Flemish infants between 0 and 18 months, recruited by formal day care services, were assessed with the AIMS by four trained physiotherapists. Information about sleep and play positioning was collected by mean of a questionnaire. RESULTS: Flemish infants perform significantly lower on the AIMS compared with the reference values (P < 0.001). Especially, infants from the age groups of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and of 15 months showed significantly lower scores. From the information collected by parental questionnaires, the lower motor scores seem to be related to the sleep position, the amount of play time in prone, in supine and in a sitting device. Infants who are exposed often to frequently to prone while awake showed a significant higher motor performance than infants who are exposed less to prone (<6 m: P = 0.002; >6 m: P = 0.013). Infants who are placed often to frequently in a sitting device in the first 6 months of life (P = 0.010) and in supine after 6 months (P = 0.001) performed significantly lower than those who are placed less in it. CONCLUSION: Flemish infants recruited by formal day care services, show significantly lower motor scores than the Canadian norm population. New reference values should be established for the AIMS for accurate identification of infants at risk. Prevention of sudden infant death syndrome by promoting supine sleep position should go together with promotion of tummy time when awake and avoiding to spent too much time in sitting devices when awake.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".