Gross Motor Development in Babies With Treated Idiopathic Clubfoot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To investigate the effect of treated clubfoot disorder on gross motor skill level measured by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Methods: Fifty-two babies participated: 26 were treated for idiopathic clubfoot (12 with the Ponseti treatment method, 9 with the French physical therapy technique, and 5 with a combination of both methods); 26 were babies who were typically developing and without medical diagnoses. The AIMS was administered at 3-month intervals. Results: No significant differences in AIMS scores were found between the clubfoot and control groups at 3 and 6 months, but at 9 and 12 months the clubfoot group scored significantly lower. Babies who were typically developing were significantly more likely to be walking at 12 months than babies with clubfoot. Conclusions: Treated clubfoot was associated with a mild delay in attainment of gross motor skills at 9 and 12 months of age. The authors found that children treated for clubfoot achieved walking later than a group of peers who were typically developing, although still within normal ranges.
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".