Motor Outcome at the Age of One after Perinatal Hypoxic-ischemic Encephalopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to describe the motor outcome in one year-old children who were born at full-term with perinatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE). Relationships between motor ability tests and neurological examination at one year, and between these tests and neonatal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were investigated. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: 32 surviving children, born full-term with perinatal HIE, are included in this report. All children had a neonatal MRI. At one year, motor ability was assessed with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd version). Neurological examinations included the neurological optimality score (NOS). RESULTS: At one year, 14 children (44%) had normal motor ability, nine (28%) had mildly delayed, and nine had significantly delayed motor ability. The NOS ranged from 14.6-27 points. All children with normal motor ability had (near) optimal NOS, however, not all children with high NOS had normal motor ability. Eleven children (34%) had normal neonatal MRI; at one year, six of them had normal, and five had mildly delayed motor ability. Eight children with normal motor ability showed abnormalities on neonatal MRI. CONCLUSION: Neonatal brain MRI does not predict motor outcome at one year. Motor ability tests and neurological examinations should be used in a complementary manner to describe outcome after HIE.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".