Motor Development of Infants With Univentricular Heart at the Ages of 16 and 52 Weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To compare the motor development of patients with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) and other types of univentricular heart (UVH) with peers who are healthy at the ages of 16 and 52 weeks. Methods: Motor development was assessed with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Results: Both the 23 patients with HLHS and the 13 patients with UVH had lower total AIMS scores in both observations than the controls. At the age of 52 weeks, patients with HLHS had significantly lower scores in all 4 AIMS subscales, whereas patients with UVH had lower scores only in the prone and standing subscales. Conclusion: Motor development of patients with HLHS or UVH is delayed during the first year of life, especially in the prone and standing subscales. Motor development of infants with univentricular heart is delayed during the first year of life, especially on the prone and standing subscales of the AIMS. Although the AIMS was found to be a valid and reliable tool for this population, the authors believe more items assessing early standing skills would improve discrimination between typical and delayed motor development.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".