Desenvolvimento motor no primeiro ano de vida de crianças prematuras conforme o peso de nascimento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
***Motor development in the first year of life of premature infants according to birth weight***AIMS: To assess motor development in the first year of life of children born at 36 weeks' gestational age, comparing two groups, one with birth weight below 2500g and the other with 2500g or more.METHODS: A cross-sectional study evaluated the motor development of children enrolled in the Basic Health Units of Caxias do Sul and Porto Alegre, by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. The sample consisted of infants born at 36 weeks' gestation, evaluated with a corrected chronological age of 0 to 12 months, divided into two groups: Low Birth Weight group (LBW group: birth weight below 2,500 g) and Adequate Birth Weight group (ABW group: birth weight of 2,500 g or more). The independent t-test, the chi-square test of Pearson and the Eta2 test (strong association> 0.60) were used to analyze the data. P <0.05 was considered significant.RESULTS: We evaluated 42 children, 21 in each group. Fifteen (71.42%) children with low birth weight were classified as small for gestational age. The mean motor development score percentile was 17.90±17.74 for the LBW group and 34.57±25.80 for the ABW group, indicating a better motor development of the second group (p=0.02) . There was a greater number of children with developmental delay in the LBW group (52.4%), whereas in the ABW group most were within the normal range (47.6%). The association was statistically significant between performance categories and birth weight groups, using the chi-square test (p=0.001), with Eta2=0.64 (strong association).CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants with matched gestational age at 36 weeks, the low birth weight group had worse motor performance in the first year of life compared to the group with adequate birth weight.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".