A preventive care program for very preterm infants improves infant behavioural outcomes and decreases anxiety and depression in caregivers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary of: Spittle AJ et al (2010) Preventive care at home for very preterm infants improves infant and caregiver outcomes at 2 years. Pediatrics 126: e171–e178. [Prepared by Nora Shields, CAP Editor.] Question : Does a home-based preventive care program improve cognitive, language, and motor development in very preterm infants, and mental health in their primary caregivers? Design : Randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessment. Setting : In the homes of participants in Australia. Participants : Infants born at less than 30 weeks gestational age, with no major congenital brain anomalies were included. Infants were excluded if the family did not live within 100 km of the recruiting centre or if their family did not speak English. Randomisation of 120 participants allocated 61 to an education and support program group and 59 to a control group. Interventions : Both groups received standard follow-up care, including access to a maternal and child health nurse and referral to early intervention services if deemed appropriate. In addition, the intervention group received nine, 90–120 minute visits over one year by a psychologist and a physiotherapist. The visits consisted of education on infant self-regulation, techniques to improve postural stability, co-ordination, and strength, and parental support.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it