Effect of postural supports on neuromotor function in very preterm infants to term equivalent age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a postural support nappy and/or a postural support roll on neuromotor function in very preterm infants when nursed prone to term equivalent age. METHODS: A randomized observer blind controlled trial of 123 very preterm infants was conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit of the sole tertiary referral centre in Western Australia. Infants were stratified by gestational age (< 29 weeks or 29-30 weeks), then randomized into one of three intervention groups: postural support nappy, postural support nappy and postural support roll, or disposable nappy and postural support roll. Interventions started when infants were stable and ceased when routine side-lying commenced. Measurements of shoulder and hip posture were performed pre-intervention, 5 weeks post-intervention and term postmenstrual age. RESULTS: Infants nursed with a postural support roll and a postural support nappy demonstrated improved hip posture to term equivalent age compared with infants nursed with either a postural support roll only, or a postural support nappy only. Infants nursed with a postural support roll either with or without a postural support nappy demonstrated improved shoulder posture to term equivalent age. CONCLUSIONS: Combined use of a postural support roll and a postural support nappy while very preterm infants are nursed prone improves hip posture up to term postmenstrual age. Use of a postural support roll improves shoulder posture up to term equivalent age.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".