Are infants with torticollis at risk of a delay in early motor milestones compared with a control group of healthy infants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently it has been claimed that infants with congenital muscular torticollis (CMT) are at risk of a delay in early motor milestones. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether infants with CMT are indeed at risk in comparison with a control group of healthy infants. A second aim was to investigate whether the time spent in a prone position and plagiocephaly had any influence on motor development. Eighty-two infants with CMT (35 females and 47 males) were compared with 40 healthy infants (18 females and 22 males). Motor development was assessed with the Alberta Infant Motor scale (AIMS). Multiple regression showed that infants in the CMT group had a significantly lower AIMS score than the control group at 2 months (p=0.03) and 6 months of age (p=0.05). Infants who spent at least three occasions daily in a prone position when awake had significantly higher AIMS scores than infants who spent less time prone at 2 months (p=0.001), 6 months (p<0.001), and 10 months of age (p<0.001). The CMT group achieved early motor milestones significantly later than the control group until the age of 10 months, but the risk of delay seems to be more strongly associated with little or no time prone when awake than with CMT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".