Research on the correlation between Alberta infant motor scale and the motion field of 0～6-year-old pediatric examination table of neuropsychological development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explove the correlation between Alberta Infant Motor Scale(AIMS)and the motion field of 0 ~6-year-old pediatric examination table of neuropsychological development(pediatric neuropsychological table for short)to provide a basis for the extension use of AIMS on the assessment for the infants' motor development and provide the basis for the early intervention for the infants with motor developmental delay.Methods A total of 238infants were selected,without high risk factors,from 3-month-old to 12-month-old,with regular health examination,from the pediatric examination room of Xiaolan's Hospital Affiliated to Southern Medical University.They were divided into groups:3~6-month group,6~ 9-month group,9~12-month group and 3~12-month group.The infants were assessed by AIMS and pediatric neuropsychological table.The correlations of AIMS and pediatric neuropsychological table were analyzed.Results The correlations of results of AIMS and pediatric neuropsychological table were:3~6-month:r=0.92,6~9-month:r=0.77,9~12-month:r= 0.90,3~12-month:r=0.97).The tests of the correlation coefficient of the population in each month group were statistically significant.Conclusions AIMS is significantly correlated with those of the motion field of 0~6-year-old pediatric examination table in the north area of Zhongshan City.And so AIMS provide a basis for the extension use of AIMS on the assessment for the motor development of infants with high risks but normal motor pattern and provide the basis for the early intervention for the infants with motor developmental delay in the north area of Zhongshan city.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".