Brazilian infant motor and cognitive development: Longitudinal influence of risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infant developmental delays have been associated with several risk factors, such as familial environmental, individual and demographic characteristics. The goal of this study was to longitudinally investigate the effects of maternal knowledge and practices, home environment and biological factors on infant motor and cognitive outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study with a sample of 49 infants from Southern Brazil. The infants were assessed three times over 4 months using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and the Bayley Scale of Infant Development (Mental Development Scale). Parents completed the Daily Activities Scale of Infants, the Affordances in The Home Environment for Motor Development - Infant Scale, the Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory and a demographic questionnaire. Generalized estimating equation with Bonferroni method as the follow-up test and Spearman correlation and multivariate linear backward regression were used. RESULTS: Cognitive and motor scores were strongly associated longitudinally and increased over time. Associations between the home affordances, parental practices and knowledge, and motor and cognitive development over time were observed. This relationship explained more variability in motor and cognitive scores compared with biological factors. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in motor and cognitive development is better explained by environment and parental knowledge and practice. The investigation of factors associated with infant development allows the identification of infants at risk and the implementation of educational programs and parental training to minimize the effects of developmental delay.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".