The Relationship Between Awake Positioning and Motor Performance Among Infants Who Slept Supine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the gross motor development of infants who slept supine and spent different amounts of time in the prone position when awake. Method Thirty infants who were six months old and slept supine were evaluated using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and then divided into two groups: prone (n = 16) and no prone (n = 14) based on the number of times per day they were placed in prone position while awake. Results The prone group scored higher than the no prone group on the AIMS total scores (U = 36, p = 0.004), total percentile scores (U = 42, p = 0.003), and prone subscale scores (U = 25, p < 0.001). Conclusions Gross motor performance as measured by the AIMS was more advanced in infants who slept supine and had been placed in the prone position when awake than in infants who slept supine but had limited or no experience in the prone position while awake. The influence of awake positioning needs to be considered when interpreting the developmental motor performance of infants who are six months old. The authors studied two groups of infants: one placed prone when awake and the other who were not placed n prone. Gross motor performance was more advanced those who had been positioned in prone when awake than in infants who had limited or no experience in prone while awake.
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".