Motor Impairment in Children With Congenital Heart Defects: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: With improvements in survival rates in newborns with congenital heart defects (CHDs), focus has now shifted toward enhancing neurodevelopmental outcomes across their life span. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the prevalence and extent of motor difficulties in infants, children, and adolescents with CHD requiring open-heart surgery. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included Embase, Medline and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. STUDY SELECTION: Original studies published between 1997 and 2019 examining gross and/or fine motor skills in children born with a CHD requiring open-heart surgery were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: The prevalence of motor impairments and mean scores on standardized motor assessments were extracted. Findings were grouped in 5 categories on the basis of the age of the children. RESULTS: Forty-six original studies were included in this systematic review. The prevalence of mild to severe motor impairments (scores <-1 SD below normative data or controls) across childhood ranged from 12.3% to 68.6%, and prevalence ranged from 0% to 60.0% for severe motor impairments (<-2 SDs). Although our results suggest that the overall prevalence of motor impairments <-1 SD remains rather constant across childhood and adolescence, severe motor impairments (<-2 SDs) appear to be more prevalent in younger children. LIMITATIONS: Variability in sampling and methodology between the reviewed studies is the most important limitation of this review. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight that infants with CHD have an increased risk of motor impairments across infancy, childhood, and adolescence. These findings stress the importance of systematic screening or evaluation of motor skills across childhood and adolescence in children with CHD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".