MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156546193 · doi:10.15621/ijphy/2021/v8i1/897

Application of Prechtl's Method on the Qualitative Assessment of General Movements to Predict Neuromotor Outcomes of Premature Babies at one year Corrected Age – Study from a Clinical Facility in Dubai

2021· article· en· W3156546193 on OpenAlex
Thanooja Naushad, N. Meena, Tushar Kulkarni, Noel George

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Physiotherapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyMedicineMovement assessmentGestational agePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsMotor skillPregnancyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose: Prechtl's general movement assessment is a tool to identify infants at risk of abnormal neurodevelopmental outcomes especially cerebral palsy. There is a need for further studies to establish its effectiveness in clinical practice. The main objective of this study was to find the diagnostic accuracy of prechtl's general movement assessment to predict neuromotor outcomes of preterm babies at one year corrected age when done in a standard clinical practice setting. The secondary objective was to find the inter-rater reliability of general movement assessment between two raters in a clinical setting.Methods: 116 preterm infants (55 females and 61 males) born below gestational age 35 weeks participated in this study. Prechtl's general movement assessment was done at two points of time – once between 33 to 40 weeks post menstrual age and later between 3 to 4 months corrected age. Babies were reassessed at 12 months (±1week) corrected age using the Infant Neurological International Battery and Alberta Infant Motor Scale to identify neuromotor dysfunction. To find the inter-rater reliability, 75 video recordings at preterm/term age and 73 recordings at fidgety age were viewed and rated independently by two raters.Results: Statistical analysis using the Fishers' exact test and Pearson's chi-square test showed significant association (p<.001) between Prechtl's General movement assessment and neuromotor outcomes at one year corrected age. General movement assessment at preterm age and fidgety age showed sensitivity of 85% (each) , specificity of 85% & 99%, positive predictive value of 27% & 85 %, and negative predictive value of 98% & 99% respectively in predicting neuromotor outcomes. Substantial agreement was found between two trained raters. Kappa values were 0.78 and 0.72for assessments done at preterm/ term age and three months corrected age respectively.Conclusion: The results suggest that Prechtl's general movement assessment done in routine clinical settings can reliably predict neuromotor outcomes of premature babies at one year corrected age. Thus, it has practical applications to identify premature babies at high risk of abnormal neurodevelopment in infancy.

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.

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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.421 · 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