The Influence of a Supine Kicking Intervention on Infants with Down Syndrome Compared to Typically Developing Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: The Influence of a Supine Kicking Intervention on Infants with Down Syndrome Compared to Typically Developing Infants\nAuthors: Kara Schimke, SPT1; Bryana Pardo, SPT1; Kaylee Redmann, SPT1; Kimberly Mahoney, SPT1; Julia Looper, PT, PhD1\nAffiliation(s): 1. School of Physical Therapy, University of Puget Sound\nPurpose: Without intervention, infants with Down syndrome (DS) initiate walking one year later than their typically developing peers (TD). Supine kicking is an essential foundation for the development of walking due to similarities between the movement patterns. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a kick-toy intervention on the frequency of purposeful kicks in infants with DS. We hypothesized that the kick-toy intervention would increase the frequency of purposeful kicks in infants with DS, as was shown in previously-collected data for TD infants, but to a lesser degree.\nMethods: Three infants with DS and five TD infants aged 3-5 months were studied. Researchers met with each participant and their family one time before the intervention and one time at the end of the 8 week intervention. Families were instructed to use the tick-toy at home for 20 minutes a day, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks. For data collection, the infants were videotaped for 5 minutes without the toy and 5 minutes with the toy at each visit.\nResults: For data collected at 0 and 8 weeks of the study, the mean number of spontaneous and purposeful kicks was 15.29 (SD 13) and 11.58 (SD 6.38), respectively for infants with DS and 15.3 (SD 13.15) and 28.6 (SD 27.52), respectively for TD infants.\nConclusions: Although the kick-toy intervention may be effective in increasing kicking in TD infants, the same conclusions cannot be made for infants with DS due to limitations in data.\nReferences: Bull MJ, Committee on Genetics. Health supervision for children with down syndrome. Pediatrics. 2011;128(2):393-406. Johnson C, McCullough L, Sellmeyer C. Assessment of a kicking intervention in typically developing infants (Abstract). 2015;57(1): E31 Santos GL, Bueno TB, Tudella E, Dionisio J. Influence of additional weight on the frequency of kicks in infants with Down syndrome and infants with typical development. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014 May-June; 18(3):237-244.
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 | 0.000 | 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".