Motor skills of 5-year-old children who underwent early cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Aims To describe the motor proficiency of 5-year-old children who underwent early infant cardiac surgery and had atypical infant gross motor development. To identify risk factors for motor dysfunction at 5 years of age. METHODS: A total of 33 children (80.5% participation rate) were re-assessed by a physiotherapist blinded to the diagnosis and previous clinical course, using standardised motor assessment tools. RESULTS: Motor proficiency was categorised as below average or well below average in 41% of the study patients. Approximately 30% of the cohort had balance deficits. Motor abilities at 4 months and 2 years of age were associated with motor proficiency at age 5; however, atypical motor development in infancy was not predictive of below-average or well below-average scores at age 5. Risk factors associated with motor ability at age 5 included respiratory support and intensive care length of stay in the 1st year of life, asymmetrical crawling in infancy, and cyanotic CHD at age 5. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences from other reported studies in terms of cohort diagnoses and age at surgery, the rate of motor dysfunction was similar, with rates much higher than expected in typical children. Further assessment is needed in later childhood to determine the significance of these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".