Maternal Factors Related to Infant Motor Development at 4 Months of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise during pregnancy and breastfeeding after pregnancy both positively influence a number of infant outcomes. However, whether physical activity during late pregnancy and breastfeeding postpartum influence motor development in the offspring at 4 months of age is unknown. Research Aim: The purposes of this study were to investigate the relationships between several important modifiable factors (i.e., maternal physical activity during late pregnancy and breastfeeding after pregnancy) on infant motor development at 4 months of age. Materials and Methods: Thirty-three women–infant pairs participated in this prospective longitudinal study. Maternal physical activity was assessed during late pregnancy with wrist-worn accelerometers for 7 consecutive days. Surveys were provided to determine infant feeding practices and other variables that could influence infant motor development. A pediatric board-certified physical therapist assessed infant motor development at 4 months using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Results: Infants who were exclusively breastfed had the highest motor development percentiles when compared with those whose mothers were supplementing with or using formula exclusively (exclusive breastfeeding: 64.3 ± 20.1, combination of mother's own milk and formula: 43.5 ± 5.0, exclusive formula: 31.5 ± 15.1, p = 0.001). No associations between physical activity levels during late pregnancy and infant motor development percentiles at 4 months were found (sedentary time: r = −0.057, p = 0.75; light activity: r = −0.074, p = 0.68; moderate activity: r = −0.094, p = 0.60). Conclusions: Infants who were exclusively breastfed had higher motor development percentiles at 4 months of age than those infants whose mothers supplemented with or used formula exclusively. Physical activity levels during late pregnancy were not related to infant motor development percentiles, which suggests that physical activities do not appear to be harmful to infant motor 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".