Workers' Health Insurance: Trends, Issues, and Options to Expand Coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The assessment of postural segment control in premature infants seems to be critical during the onset of upright gross motor development, especially sitting. Identifying correlations between postural segment control and the development of sitting milestones could help with promoting optimal gross motor movement. However, data on this topic in home-raised premature infants via longitudinal design are still limited. The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between postural segment control and sitting development through series assessments from the corrected age of 4 months until the early onset of independent sitting attainment. (2) Methods: 33 moderate-to-late premature infants were recruited. Their trunk segment control was assessed using the Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control (SATCo), and sitting development was examined by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Relationships between SATCo and sitting scores were analysed using Spearman's rank correlation (r<sub>s</sub>). (3) Results: significant fair-to-good correlations between segmental trunk control and sitting scales were found from 4 months (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.370-0.420, <i>p</i> < 0.05) to the age of independent sitting attainment (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.561-0.602, <i>p</i> < 0.01). (4) Conclusion: relationships between the trunk segment control and sitting ability of moderate-to-late preterm infants were increased in accordance with age.
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".