Relationships of Equipment Use and Play Positions to Motor Development at Eight Months Corrected Age of Infants Born Preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between both use of infant equipment and play positions and motor development of infants born preterm who were classified as high risk. Subjects were 60 parent-infant dyads attending a developmental follow-up clinic. Methods Parents reported the duration of infant equipment use and the predominant positions in which their infants played in the previous month. Infants were assessed using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Results Equipment use was not related to motor development; however, the duration of carrying was negatively related to the sit subscale of the AIMS (r = −0.31, p < 0.05). As a group, the infants in this sample spent more time in the relatively less active play positions of sitting and supine than in the positions of prone and standing. Conclusions Therapists should consider the use of equipment and specific play positions to enhance motor development of infants born preterm and work with parents to promote an understanding of the importance of providing their infants with opportunities to develop early motor competencies. Infants in this study spent more time in the less active play positions of sitting and supine than in prone and standing. Therapists should encourage parents to use equipment and specific play positions to enhance motor development of infants born born preterm.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".