Instrumentos utilizados para avaliação do desenvolvimento de recém-nascidos pré-termo no Brasil: revisão da literatura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Technological advances in neonatal care have led to increased survival of preterm newborns. This increase has raised concern about the development of these babies and generated interest among researchers to investigate the neuropsychomotor development of children born prematurely. Objective: To review the Brazilian literature to identify the main instruments used to evaluate the development of children born preterm in the first three years of life. Methodology: A literature search, from 1999 to 2011, was conducted in the Lilacs and Scielo databases. Results: Eleven developmental assessments were identified, and among the 24 articles selected for this review, most of them (11, 45.83%) used the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) (6, 54.5%) and the Developmental Screening test Denver II (DDR II) (5, 45.5%). Conclusion: There is predominance of the use of norm-referenced instruments created in other countries, with no validation studies for the Brazilian children. This review indicates a need for more research focused on the translation and validation of international assessment tools as well as instruments developed in Brazil.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".