MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2012· article· en· W1777847228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandra De Kegel, Wim Peersman, Katleen Onderbeke, Tina Baetens, Ingeborg Dhooge, Hilde Van Waelvelde

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionFlemishSittingMedicinePediatricsProne positionMovement assessmentMotor skillBody positionPhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaPsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207