A randomized clinical trial in preterm infants on the effects of a home-based early intervention with the 'CareToy System'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CareToy system is an innovative tele-rehabilitative tool, useful in providing intensive, individualized, home-based, family-centred Early Intervention (EI) in infants. Our aim was to evaluate, through a Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) study, the effects of CareToy intervention on early motor and visual development in preterm infants. 41 preterm infants (range age: 3.0-5.9 months of corrected age) were enrolled and randomized into two groups, CareToy and Standard Care. 19 infants randomized in CareToy group performed a 4-week CareToy program, while 22 allocated to control group completed 4 weeks of Standard Care. Infant Motor Profile (IMP) was primary outcome measure, Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Teller Acuity Cards were secondary ones. Assessments were carried out at baseline (T0) and at the end of CareToy training or Standard Care period (T1). T1 was the primary endpoint. After RCT phase, 17 infants from control group carried out a 4-week CareToy program, while 18 infants from the CareToy group continued with Standard Care. At the end of this phase, infants were re-assessed at T2. In RCT phase, delta IMP total score and variation and performance sub-domains were significantly higher (P<0.050) in CareToy group if compared to Standard Care group. Similar results were found for Teller Acuity Cards, while no differences between groups were found for AIMS. No differences were found in any outcome measure results (T2-T0), between infants who started CareToy training before or after one month of standard care. This RCT study confirms the results of a previous pilot study, indicating that CareToy system can provide effective home-based EI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier NCT01990183).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".