Inspection of infant motor development: importance of the insertion of a physical therapist in childcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: The Childcare Program aims at the health promotion, prevention and early diagnosis of diseases and recovery from diseases in childhood through programmed monitoring of the child's growth and development. A physical therapist can contribute to the early identification of neuropsychomotor developmental disorders. Objective: To characterize the motor development (DM) of infants during childcare consultations and to discuss the importance of a professional physical therapist in primary health care teams. Methods: The sample comprised 91 infants aged 0-6 months attended in childcare consultations. Infants with musculoskeletal disorders, neuropathology, and those who cried bitterly, thereby preventing the evaluation were excluded. DM was evaluated using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Results: Of the infants aged 0-3 months, 11.76% had atypical DM, 23.62% were at risk for motor delay, and 64.07% had typical DM. Among the infants aged 4-6 months (25.3%), less than half of the children (39.13%) had typical DM. Among the infants aged 4-6 months who did not have typical DM, 40% belonged to the group of premature infants. Conclusion: As the child grows, the motor experiences should be more challenging for DM to constantly evolve. The insertion of a physical therapist in childcare, together with the Family Health Strategy team, can expand care and guarantee the assessment, monitoring, and promotion of early stimulation of childhood DM, in addition to the recognition of its importance in primary care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".