Known-Groups Analysis of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) is a screening tool designed to identify neuromotor or cognitive/behavioral concerns in infants who are healthy or at high risk between the ages of 3 and 12 months. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the HINT could distinguish between infants at high risk and infants at low risk for neuromotor delays. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Following HINT administration by trained health care professionals, scores were compared for 54 high-risk infants and 412 low-risk infants with a t test. RESULTS: Mean HINT scores for infants at low risk were lower than mean scores for infants at high risk, as would be expected in that higher scores indicate higher risk. Significant differences were found at 4, 5, 7, and 8 months. At 6 months, there were no significant differences. There were not enough high-risk infants in other subgroups for reliable comparison. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The HINT appears to discriminate effectively between infants who are at low risk and infants who are at high risk for neuromotor delays, supporting the use of the HINT as a screening tool for infants in the first year of life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".