MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600089964 · doi:10.1097/pep.0000000000000385

Commentary on “Concurrent Validity Between Live and Home Video Observations Using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale”

2017· letter· en· W2600089964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roberta Gatlin, Sue Hausch, Linda Caruso

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Service (business)Infant developmentApplied psychologyMedical educationMedicineDevelopmental psychologyBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“How should I apply this information?” We embrace evidence-based technology in our practices to improve outcomes. Our challenge is whether this technology can be adopted across populations and is transferable to different settings. On the basis of most current service models, an evaluation performed from a home recording would not be reimbursed. However, there is merit to this form of assessment. Staff shortages, meeting the needs of patients in a timely manner, serving rural areas, and families with infants too medically compromised to travel could benefit from a recorded assessment. The pediatric physical therapist would have the opportunity to observe the infant in the natural environment. A recording offers a permanent visual record of an infant's motor progression. Parent Response: The parent of an infant undergoing an evaluation needs a great deal of support and reassurance. I would like to be able to be with a therapist, physician, or whomever I am consulting with, to read the evaluators body language, ask as many questions as necessary, and have the full attention of the person evaluating my infant. “What should I be mindful about when applying this information?” It was unclear whether the evaluators were able to stop the video footage and replay. Video offers repeated viewing of an infant's performance in contrast to an on-site evaluation. We need to consider the benefit of having on-site as opposed to video and whether the camera captures the subtle nuances of an infant's motor skills. The families participating in the study were carefully screened and were educated and with access to a recording device. The instructions for parents may not be appropriate for our various patient populations, with their unique characteristics. Some families might not have the abilities or equipment to carry through the process. It may be difficult for some families to find 30 minutes for recording and a location. Financial resources, parent skill, and comfort level with recording, as well as sibling participation, may impact the home recording. Parent Response: As a parent, I would not be in favor of a video assessment for my child. I feel that having a video assessment is very impersonal. I equate it to texting someone instead of calling and speaking directly to the person. Roberta “Bertie” Gatlin, PT, DScPT, PCS University Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis, Tennessee Sue Hausch, PT, DPT Children's Rehabilitation Center White Plains, New York Linda Caruso Mother of a child with complex medical needs

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Physical TherapySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207