Prediction of Motor and Functional Outcomes in Infants Born Preterm Assessed at Term
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To compare 3 different assessment approaches at term to infants born preterm to predict motor and functional outcomes at 12 months adjusted age. Methods: Infants (n = 100) born at less than 32 weeks postconceptional age were assessed at term using the General Movements Assessment, Einstein Neonatal Neurobehavioral Assessment Scales, Test of Infant Motor Performance, and at 12 months adjusted age using the Alberta Infant Motor Scales, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2, Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Daily Living Skills, and Battelle Developmental Inventory. Results: The General Movements Assessment (r2 = 0.04; p = 0.05) and the Test of Infant Motor Performance (r2 = 0.05; p = 0.04) predicted outcomes on the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2. The Test of Infant Motor Performance predicted outcomes on the Alberta Infant Motor Scales (r2 = 0.05; p = 0.04) and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Daily Living Skills (odds ratio: 0.93). Delays in functional performance were found. Conclusions: Neonatal tests at term explained a small but significant proportion of the variance in gross motor and daily living skills at 12 months adjusted age. Neonatal tests at term of infants born preterm explained a small but significant proportion of the variance in gross motor and daily living skills at 12 months adjusted age. Clinical Bottom Line: Barbara Sargent and Linda Fetters
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".