Desempenho motor em crianças pré-termo e a termo aos quatro, seis e oito meses de idade: estudo comparativo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the motor performance of preterm and full term infants aged four, sis and eight months.Method: observational, longitudinal and prospective study. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale- AIMS- was used to evaluate 44 infants (22 preterm and 22 full term) The full term group included 12 female and 10 male infants, and the preterm group included 11 female and 11 male infants. Gestational age was corrected for the preterm group. The examiner was blinded to group membership. Data analysis included intraclass correlation to verify inter-rater reliability and, since the Shapiro- Wilk test did not confirm that the data was normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the two groups and the Wilcoxon s test to compare the AIMSs percentiles in the same group, at different ages (p< 0,05). The correlation between variables (Spearman) was examined as well as the differences in item performance (Chi- squared).Results: Mann-Whitneys test did not identify significant difference between groups on motor performance in any of the ages, either for total and area scores or percentiles. But there were signs of variation in rhythm and instability of the percentiles.Concluson: The results support the idea of possible variations in individual evaluations of motor development, and aspect that is relevant for professionals who work in the infant development area.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".