Desenvolvimento do sistema sensório motor oral e motor global em lactentes pré-termo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: development assessment of preterm infants. AIM: to evaluate the association between the gestational ages (GA) of premature infants with the global motor development as well as with early signs of sensory oral motor development delay, and to verify a possible association between them. METHOD: an exploratory study that assessed the development of 55 infants with corrected chronological ages between four to five months, born preterm at the Instituto Materno Infantil Professor Fernando Figueira (IMIP) and who were followed at the Kangaroo Mother Program Clinic between March and August of 2004. The assessment of the sensory oral motor development was performed through pre-selected indicators and of the global motor development through the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). RESULTS: infants with lower GA (29 to 34 weeks) presented a higher median of risk signs in the sensory oral motor development assessment when compared to those with higher GA (35 to 36 weeks). Regarding the global motor development, infants born with lower GA presented a higher number of scores in the AIMS below percentile 10 (26%) when compared to those with a higher GA (4%) (p=0.009). The median index of the risk signs for the sensory oral motor development were significantly higher among infants with total AIMS scores below percentile 25 when compared to those with scores equal to or above percentile 25. CONCLUSION: the gestational age of infants at birth influenced the sensory oral motor and global motor development - infants with lower gestational ages presented worse performances. These findings suggest a possible association between both aspects of infant development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".