Modeling a gross motor curve of typically developing Dutch infants from 3.5 to 15.5 months based on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interindividual variability in gross motor development of infants is substantial and challenges the interpretation of motor assessments. Longitudinal research can provide insight into variability in individual gross motor trajectories. PURPOSE: To model a gross motor growth curve of healthy term-born infants from 3.5 to 15.5 months with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and to explore groups of infants with different patterns of development. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study including six assessments with the AIMS. A Linear Mixed Model analysis (LMM) was applied to model motor growth, controlled for covariates. Cluster analysis was used to explore groups with different pathways. Growth curves for the subgroups were modelled and differences in the covariates between the groups were described and tested. RESULTS: In total, data of 103 infants was included in the LMM which showed that a cubic function (F(1,571) = 89.68, p < 0.001) fitted the data best. None of the covariates remained in the model. Cluster analysis delineated three clinically relevant groups: 1) Early developers (32%), 2) Gradual developers (46%), and 3) Late bloomers (22%). Significant differences in covariates between the groups were found for birth order, maternal education and maternal employment. CONCLUSION: The current study contributes to knowledge about gross motor trajectories of healthy term born infants. Cluster analysis identified three groups with different gross motor trajectories. The motor growth curve provides a starting point for future research on motor trajectories of infants at risk and can contribute to accurate screening.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".