Association between motor development of typical children and head and trunk alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Among the typical motor development, it is considered the neck control as being of great importance. Although there is no consensus of the best positioning for stimulation of neck control, it is clear in the literature the positive association between the prone position and the typical motor development according to the age of infants. Objective: To investigate the association between the kinematic variables related to neck control and bracing with age and motor performance in the prone position of typical children. Methods: 30 children participated in the study. Motor development was assessed by Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), and the alignment of the head, trunk and upper limb was analyzed through kinematic analysis in the prone position. Results: with the association of the variables: age, AIMS in the prone position and the kinematic variables (inclination of the head, trunk extension, shoulder angle and elbow angle), was observed that the increase in age and the best performance in the prone position corresponding to the inclination of the head. The trunk and elbow extension also increases. Conclusion: there was a positive association between the variables age and motor performance in the prone position of typical children, with kinematics variables the inclination of the head, the trunk and the elbow extension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".