The general movements assessment in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, as a predictive tool of cerebral palsy by 2 years of age: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prediction of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes remains an elusive goal for neonatology. Clinical and socioeconomic markers have not proven to be adequately reliable. The limitation in prognostication includes those term and late-preterm infants born with neonatal encephalopathy. The General Movements Assessment tool by Prechtl has demonstrated reliability for identifying infants at risk for neuromotor impairment. This tool is non-invasive and cost-effective. The purpose of this study is to identify the published literature on how this tool applies to the prediction of cerebral palsy in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy and so detect the research gaps. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic scoping review for data on sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value and describe the strengths and limitations of the results. This review will consider studies that included infants more than or equal to 34 + 0 weeks gestational age, diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, with a General Movements Assessment done between birth to six months of life and an assessment for cerebral palsy by at least 2 years of age. Experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, before and after studies, interrupted time-series studies and systematic reviews will be considered. Case reports, case series, case control, and cross-sectional studies will be included. Text, opinion papers, and animal studies will not be considered for inclusion in this scoping review as this is a highly specific and medical topic. Studies in the English language only will be considered. Studies published from at least 1970 will be included as this is around the time when the General Movements Assessment was first introduced in neonatology as a potential predictor of neuromotor outcomes. We will search five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL). Two reviewers will conduct all screening and data extraction independently. The articles will be categorized according to key findings and a critical appraisal performed. DISCUSSION: The results of this review will guide future research to improve early identification and timely intervention in infants with neonatal encephalopathy at risk of neuromotor impairment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Title registration with Joanna Briggs Institute https://joannabriggs.org/ebp/systematic_review_register .
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 | 0.055 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".