Evaluation of a “tummy time” intervention to improve motor skills in infants after cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infants who require open heart surgery are at increased risk for developmental delays including gross motor impairments which may have implications for later adaptive skills and cognitive performance. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a tummy time intervention to improve motor skill development in infants after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Infants <4 months of age who underwent cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to tummy time with or without outpatient reinforcement or standard of care prior to hospital discharge. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was administered to each infant prior to and 3 months after discharge. Groups were compared, and the association between parent-reported tummy time at home and change in motor scores at follow-up was examined. RESULTS: Parents of infants (n = 64) who had cardiac surgery at a median age of 5 days were randomly assigned to tummy time instruction (n = 20), tummy time + outpatient reinforcement (n = 21) or standard of care (n = 23). Forty-nine (77%) returned for follow-up. At follow-up, reported daily tummy time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.17). Fifteen infants had <15 minutes of tummy time daily. Infants who received >15 minutes of tummy time daily had a significantly greater improvement in motor scores than infants with <15 minutes of tummy time daily (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In infants following cardiac surgery, <15 minutes of tummy time daily is associated with increased motor skill impairment. Further research is needed to elucidate the best strategies to optimise parental compliance with tummy time recommendations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".