Assessing Gross Motor Development of Brazilian Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To determine whether the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) requires reference values specific for Brazilian infants. Methods: A total of 660 (330 girls) healthy full-term infants from Belo Horizonte were assessed using the AIMS. Scores and percentile curves were compared with the Canadian reference values. Results and Discussion: Differences were found in the 5th percentile (9-<10 and 10-<11 months) and the 10th percentile (4-<5, 9-<10, and 10-<11 months) curves. No significant differences were found between sexes on the basis of the economic classification or the criteria of the Human Development Index. Conclusion: Primarily because of the corrections made to the 5th and 10th percentile curves, we recommend the use of the Brazilian infant data curves reported here for further studies conducted in Brazil. Because the Human Development Index of Belo Horizonte is similar to that for Brazil as a whole, the results of this study should be relevant for clinicians throughout Brazil. This study of 660 Brazilian infants' performance on the AIMS led the authors to recommend use of Brazilian infant data for assessing Brazilian infants due to corrections made to the 5th and 10th percentiles curves.
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".