Consistency between Alberta Infant Motor Scale and Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2 in Assessing Motor Function of High Risk Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the parallel validity of Alberta infant motor scale(AIMS) and Peabody developmental motor scale-2(PDMS-2) in assessing motor function of high risk infants.Methods 60 high risk infants,aged from 1 month to 9 months,were assessed by both the AIMS and PDMS-2.The total scores of AIMS and the total original scores of PDMS-2 gross motor scale(GMS) were compared by the Spearman's analysis.The AIMS's percentage and PDMS-2 gross motor quotient(GMQ) were compared with qualitative analysis by Kappa value.The examination time of the two scales was also compared.Results The correlation coefficient of the total scores of AIMS and the original scores of GMS was 0.91(P0.001).The correlation coefficient of AIMS's percentage and GMQ was 0.6.The mean time of AIMS was(10.47±3.63) min,and that of PDMS-2 was(26.5±7.77) min for examination(t=28.895,P0.001).Conclusion AIMS and PDMS-2 are in a high level of consistency when assessing the motor function of 1-month-old to 9-month-old high risk infants.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".