Motor development’s curves of premature infants on the first year of life according to Alberta Infant Motor Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: The motor trajectory of pre-term children is an important indicator of health during infancy, since alterations may be a signal for the need of professional intervention. Objective: To describe percentiles and motor development curves for Brazilian preterm infants in the first year of life, determining the reference values for categorization of motor performance assessed by the AIMS. Methods: Participated in this cross-sectional study 976 children born pre-term, newly-born to 12 months of corrected age. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was used to assess participants’ motor development. The scores of the Brazilian norms were used as comparison criteria. Results: Children born pre-term showed lower scores compared to children born full-term indicating the need for a specific percentile curve for that population. The scores differentiated at P1 to P99 percentiles allowing for the categorization of children with typical development, at risk and with atypical development. At 0, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 months an overlapping of extreme percentiles (P1, P5 and P10; P90, P95 and P99) was observed, but not in the other percentiles. Conclusion: The percentiles described indicate that preterm children presented lower motor performance than full-term children and AIMS has discriminant power for the clinical evaluation of these children. The developmental curves showed lower capacity for behavioral differentiation in the extreme percentiles.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".