MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149155856 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20060096

Known-Groups Analysis of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test

2007· article· en· W2149155856 on OpenAlexaff
Antoinette M Megens, Susan R. Harris, Catherine L. Backman, Virginia E. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)PsychologyMedicineGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207