Eficacia de la terapia Votja en el progreso motor de niños de riesgo biológico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo Valorar la eficacia del metodo Vojta en el progreso motor de los ninos prematuros en los primeros 18 meses de edad corregida y comparar su eficacia frente a otros metodos de Fisioterapia, asi como valorar el efecto del tratamiento con Vojta en la calidad del desarrollo motor grueso. Metodologia Estudio longitudinal, con dos grupos de tratamiento fisioterapico en Atencion Temprana. Grupo Experimental (GE) formado por 47 ninos prematuros tratados con el metodo Vojta y Grupo Control (GC) con 37 ninos prematuros de similares caracteristicas tratados con otros metodos. La evaluacion se realizo en el primer trimestre, a los 6, 12 y 18 meses de edad corregida, con las escalas motoras de la Bayley 3a ed. (BSID-III). Ademas con los ninos tratados con Vojta se administro la escala motora de Alberta (AIMS). Resultados Se encuentran diferencias significativas en la mejora motora gruesa y fina en los ninos prematuros de riesgo alto y moderado, a favor del GE (p<0,001 y p<0,005 respectivamente). La mejora del percentil de desarrollo motor cualitativo a los 18 meses, en el grupo de ninos tratados con el metodo Vojta, es significativa (p<0,001). Conclusiones El tratamiento Vojta resulto mas efectivo que otros metodos en el progreso motor y en la mejora de la calidad de los patrones motores de los ninos prematuros durante los primeros 18 meses. Purpose To assess the efficacy of the Vojta Method in the motor progress of preterm children along their first 18 months of corrected age and to compare its efficacy to other methods of physiotherapy as well as to assess the effect of the treatment with Vojta in the quality of the gross motor development. Method It was a longitudinal study, with two groups receiving physical therapy treatment in an early intervention program. An experimental Group (GE) consisting of 47 preterm children treated with Vojta method and a Control Group (GC) with 37 preterm children of similar characteristics treated with other methods. The assessment was carried out during the first trimester, at 6, 12 and 18 months of corrected age with the Bayley motor scales 3rd edition (BSID-III). Besides, in the case of the children treated with Vojta, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was also used. Results Significant differences are found in the fine and gross motor improvement in preterm children with high and moderate risk in favor of the GE (p<0,001 y p<0,005 respectively). The improvement of the qualitative motor development percentile at the age of 18 months in the group of children treated with the Vojta method is significant (p<0,001). Conclusions Vojta treatment proved to be more effective than other methods in the motor progress and in the improvement of the quality of the motor patterns of the preterm children during their first 18 months old.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".