Gross motor development is delayed following early cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the gross motor development of infants who had undergone cardiac surgery in the neonatal or early infant period. METHODS: Gross motor performance was assessed when infants were 4, 8, 12, and 16 months of age with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. This scale is a discriminative gross motor outcome measure that may be used to assess infants from birth to independent walking. Infants were videotaped during the assessment and were later evaluated by a senior paediatric physiotherapist who was blinded to each infant's medical history, including previous clinical assessments. Demographic, diagnostic, surgical, critical care, and medical variables were considered with respect to gross motor outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 50 infants who underwent elective or emergency cardiac surgery at less than or up to 8 weeks of age, between July 2006 and January 2008, were recruited to this study and were assessed at 4 months of age. Approximately, 92%, 84%, and 94% of study participants returned for assessment at 8, 12, and 16 months of age, respectively. Study participants had delayed gross motor development across all study time points; 62% of study participants did not have typical gross motor development during the first year of life. Hospital length of stay was associated with gross motor outcome across infancy. CONCLUSION: Active gross motor surveillance of all infants undergoing early cardiac surgery is recommended. Further studies of larger congenital heart disease samples are required, as are longitudinal studies that determine the significance of these findings at school age and beyond.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".