MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Children Motor Performance in the First Year of Life

2020· article· en· W3117406112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lenise Baldin Cavazzola, Natiele de Mello de Oliveira, Mayra Nathu Lodi, Bruna Chiarani, Fernanda Trubian, Caroline Cenci Sangali, Laura de Moura Rodrigues, Raquel Saccani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow birth weightPediatricsMotor skillBirth weightGestational ageMedicinePopulationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPregnancyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractMotor skills acquisition is negatively affected by low birth weight in preterm infants. This research aimed to evaluate the motor development of preterm babies from zero to 12 months of corrected age, born with very low birth weight. The sample of 45 children, from 2 to 12 months of chronological age, was divided into two groups: Group A (from 0 to 6 months, n=35) and Group B (from 7 to 12 months, n=10). In order to assess the motor skill development, Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was used along with two questionnaires to control the biological and environmental risk factors. In the results 53,3% of the children were preterm below 30 weeks gestational age, and more than 40% of the evaluated population presented a poor motor performance for the age, with 13.3% of the referred children as having abnormal motor development and 35.6%, suspicious of delayed motor development. The worst performance could be observed in Group B. The findings reinforce the importance of early assessment, considering that the first semester is the most critical period for the child’s neuropsychomotor development. Key-words: Infant, Premature. Motor Skills. Infant, Very Low Birth Weight. Resumo O baixo peso ao nascer afeta negativamente as aquisições motoras dos prematuros. Esta pesquisa teve como objetivo avaliar o desenvolvimento motor de bebês pré-termos de zero a 12 meses de idade corrigida, nascidos de muito baixo peso. Participaram da pesquisa 45 crianças, com idade entre 2 e 12 meses de idade cronológica, divididas em 2 grupos: Grupo A (0 a 6 meses, n=35) e grupo B (7 a 12 meses, n=10). Para avaliação motora foi utilizada a Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) e dois questionários para controle dos fatores de risco biológicos e ambientais. Nos resultados, 53,3% das crianças eram prematuras com idade gestacional menor que 30 semanas e mais de 40% da população avaliada apresentou desempenho motor inadequado, sendo que 13,3% apresentaram atraso e 35,6% suspeita de atraso. O pior desempenho foi observado no grupo A. Os achados reforçam a importância da avaliação precoce, considerando que o primeiro semestre é o período mais crítico ao desenvolvimento motor. Palavras-chave: Recém-Nascido Prematuro. Destreza Motora. Recém-Nascido de muito Baixo Peso.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health SciencesSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207