DEVELOPMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF INFANTS BORN PRETERM: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CHRONOLOGICAL AND CORRECTED AGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the global and motor development of infants born preterm, regarding the performance in the chronological age and corrected age for prematurity. Methods: This is a crosssectional study. The sample was comprised of 182 preterm infants (< 37 weeks of gestational age) and low birth weight (< 2,500 grams) belonging to the following age groups: 2-4 months (n = 182), 4-6 months (n = 146), and 6-8 months (n = 112). The global development was assessed through the Denver-II test in the three age groups, and the motor development was assessed through the Test of Infant Motor Performance in 2-4 months group and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in 4-6 and 6-8 months group. The infants‘ performance classifications in the chronological and corrected ages were compared through the McNemar’s test. Results: The global and motor development was delayed in 75% to 91% of the infants, regarding the chronological age in all three age groups. Otherwise, concerning the corrected age for prematurity, the delayed performance was detected in 33% to 51% of the infants in all three age groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The development assessments taking on the chronological age could overestimate risks and problems in the first year of age.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".