Motor development from 4 to 8 months corrected age in infants born at or less than 29 weeks’ gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Clinically, preterm infants show motor delay and atypical postures compared with their peers born at term. A longitudinal cohort study was designed to describe the motor development of very preterm infants from 4 to 18 months corrected age (CA). The study was also designed to investigate how the atypical postures observed in early infancy in the preterm infants might be related to their later motor development. Here we report the findings in early motor skills from 4 to 8 months CA. METHOD: Early motor skills were assessed in 62 preterm infants (32 males, 30 females, mean gestation 26.94wks, SD 1.11) and 53 term infants (32 males, 21 females, mean gestation 39.55wks, SD 1.17) using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). RESULTS: The preterm infants demonstrated different motor behaviours from their term peers, with an uneven progression of motor skills in different positions from 4 to 8 months CA. At 8 months CA, 90%of the term infants were able to sit without arm support, but only 56%of the preterm infants could maintain sitting very briefly without arm support. INTERPRETATION: This uneven progression may have been due to an imbalance between the active flexor and extensor strength and hence inadequate postural control in these positions. The AIMS has also been shown to be a valid assessment tool to demonstrate unique characteristics in movement quality in the preterm population.
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) | 0.000 | 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".