Gross Motor Development of Children with Congenital Heart Disease Receiving Early Systematic Surveillance and Individualized Intervention: Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective study aims to describe the gross motor development of children aged 4 to 24 months with congenital heart disease (CHD) enrolled in a systematic developmental follow-up program and to describe the frequency of physical therapy sessions they received between 4 and 8 months of age.Methods: Twenty-nine infants with CHD underwent motor evaluations using the AIMS at 4 months, and the Bayley-III at 12 and 24 months.Results: Based on AIMS, 79% of 4-month-old infants had a gross motor delay and required physical therapy. Among these, 56.5% received one to two physical therapy sessions, and 43.5% received three to six sessions. Infants who benefited from regular interventions tended to show a better improvement in motor scores from 12 to 24 months.Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of early motor screening in infants with CHD and suggests a potential benefit of early physical therapy in at-risk children.Abbreviations: CHD: Congenital heart disease; AIMS: Alberta Infant Motor Scales; Bayley-III: Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third edition; Bayley-III/GM: Gross Motor section of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third edition
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".