Gross Motor Development of Children with Congenital Heart Disease Receiving Early Systematic Surveillance and Individualized Intervention: Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In this pilot study, we described the gross motor development of infants aged 4 to 24 months with congenital heart disease (CHD) and assessed through a systematic developmental screening programme, with individualised motor interventions. Methods: Thirty infants who had cardiac repair underwent gross motor evaluations using the AIMS at 4 months, and the Bayley-III at 12 and 24 months. Results: Based on AIMS, 80% of 4-month-old infants had a delay in gross motor development and required physical therapy. Gross motor abilities significantly improved by 24 months. Infants who benefited from regular physiotherapy tended to show better improvement in motor scores. Conclusion: Our study highlights the importance of early motor screening in infants with CHD and suggests a potential benefit of early physical therapy in those at-risk. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of systematic developmental screening and individualized intervention programmes at identifying at risk patients, and their impact on developmental outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".