Desenvolvimento motor de gêmeos pré-termo: existem diferenças entre a ordem de nascimento?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31011/1519-339X.2018a18n85.06 O objetivo do estudo foi analisar o desenvolvimento motor de gemelares nascidos pré-termo de 0 a 6 meses deidade cronológica corrigida pela Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), e comparar as diferenças existentes entre osgêmeos, considerando a ordem de nascimento e as variáveis neonatais. Estudo transversal, com 38 gemelares entre0 a 6 meses, de ambos os sexos, nascidos pré-termo, de baixo peso, sem morbidades graves no período neonatale sem sequelas neurossensoriais na alta hospitalar, oriundos do Hospital Materno-Infantil de Goiânia, GO, Brasil. Acoleta foi realizada por avaliadores treinados e composta por entrevista de anamnese, questionário socioeconômicoe avaliação do desenvolvimento motor com a AIMS. A análise dos dados foi cega, realizada por intermédio devideogravações e cada par de gemelares foi avaliado no mesmo dia. O primeiro e segundo gemelar (GI e GII)apresentaram variáveis neonatais semelhantes. Não houve diferença signifi cativa ao comparar o desenvolvimentomotor entre os pares. A maioria dos bebês foi classifi cada com desenvolvimento normal, sem diferença entre ospares. Conclui-se que os bebês gemelares pré-termo apresentaram variáveis neonatais e desenvolvimento motorsemelhantes, quando comparados entre GI e GII. Ressalta-se a importância de acompanhar o desenvolvimento dosbebês gemelares, sobretudo quando há associação com a prematuridade.Palavras-chave: Recém-Nascido Prematuro; Gêmeos; Desenvolvimento Infantil. ABsTRAcTThe aim of this study was to analyze the motor development of preterm twins from 0 to 6 months of chronologicalage corrected by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), and to compare the differences between the twins,considering birth order and neonatal variables. A cross-sectional study with 38 twins between 0 and 6 monthsold, of both genders, preterm, low birth weight, with no severe morbidity in the neonatal period, and withoutsensorineural sequelae at hospital discharge from the Maternal-Infant Hospital of Goiânia, GO, Brazil. The collectionwas performed by trained evaluators and was composed of anamnesis interview, socioeconomic questionnaireand motor development evaluation with AIMS. The data analysis was blindly performed, through video recordingsand each pair of twins was evaluated on the same day. The fi rst and second twins (TI and TII) presented similarneonatal variables. There was no signifi cant difference when comparing the motor development among the pairs.Most were classifi ed with normal development, with no difference between pairs. It concludes that preterm twinspresented similar neonatal variables and motor development, when compared to TI and TII. It is important tomonitor the development of twin infants, especially when there is an association with prematurity.Keywords: Premature; Twins; Child Development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".