Accuracy of Two Motor Assessments during the First Year of Life in Preterm Infants for Predicting Motor Outcome at Preschool Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Neuro-Sensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA) over the first year of life for predicting motor impairment at 4 years in preterm children. The secondary aims were to assess the predictive value of serial assessments over the first year and when using a combination of these two assessment tools in follow-up. METHOD: Children born <30 weeks' gestation were prospectively recruited and assessed at 4, 8 and 12 months' corrected age using the AIMS and NSMDA. At 4 years' corrected age children were assessed for cerebral palsy (CP) and motor impairment using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd-edition (MABC-2). We calculated accuracy of the AIMS and NSMDA for predicting CP and MABC-2 scores ≤15th (at-risk of motor difficulty) and ≤5th centile (significant motor difficulty) for each test (AIMS and NSMDA) at 4, 8 and 12 months, for delay on one, two or all three of the time points over the first year, and finally for delay on both tests at each time point. RESULTS: Accuracy for predicting motor impairment was good for each test at each age, although false positives were common. Motor impairment on the MABC-2 (scores ≤5th and ≤15th) was most accurately predicted by the AIMS at 4 months, whereas CP was most accurately predicted by the NSMDA at 12 months. In regards to serial assessments, the likelihood ratio for motor impairment increased with the number of delayed assessments. When combining both the NSMDA and AIMS the best accuracy was achieved at 4 months, although results were similar at 8 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Motor development during the first year of life in preterm infants assessed with the AIMS and NSMDA is predictive of later motor impairment at preschool age. However, false positives are common and therefore it is beneficial to follow-up children at high risk of motor impairment at more than one time point, or to use a combination of assessment tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTR.org.au ACTRN12606000252516.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".