Effect of the inclination of support in cervical and upper limb development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction It is expected that a child will acquire control of posture (CP) of the head and upper limbs in a gradual, sequential and organized way. However, there is still no consensus regarding the best position to achieve this; the evidence suggests that it is prone. Objective To investigate whether age and inclination of the supporting surface in the prone position influence the alignment of the head and upper limbs of children with typical motor development (TMD) and atypical motor development (AMD). Methods The study included 29 children aged between one and three months divided according to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) into groups with TMD (n = 18) and AMD (n = 11). The children were placed in the prone position with three angles of the support surface (0°, 25° and 45°). Kinematic analysis was conducted to evaluate the alignment angles of the head and upper limbs. Results Children with TMD had higher head alignment. There was no difference in the upper limbs’ alignment between the group with TMD and the group with AMD. In the third month of age compared with the first, increased head alignment and decreased upper limb alignment were found in both groups. The inclination of the supporting surface did not influence the alignment of the head and upper limbs. Conclusions Among the positions evaluated, the prone position without inclination of the supporting surface was more appropriate for weight discharge in the upper limbs, favoring the development of postural control of the child.
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 | 0.001 | 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".