Motor outcomes in young children pre‐and one‐year post‐liver transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motor skill acquisition plays an important role in physical activity participation and overall social and physical health. Limited studies have examined motor development in children pre-and post-liver transplant (LT). METHODS: Retrospective review of motor outcomes in children <6 years old with cholestatic liver disease assessed pre-and 1-year post-isolated LT. Measures include Alberta Infant Motor Scale and Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (gross motor quotient (GMQ), fine motor quotient (FMQ), and total motor quotient (TMQ)). Association of medical variables with motor outcomes was explored. RESULTS: percentile on AIMS/ ≥1SD below mean GMQ). Post-LT, 52% scored ≥1 SD below the mean GMQ compared with 22% FMQ. Children at risk/delayed pre-LT had an increased risk of motor delay on GMQ post-LT (odds ratio 11.43, 95% CI 1.12-116.7, p = .017). Higher INR pre-LT correlated with lower TMQ post-LT (r = -.51, p = .003). Longer waitlist time correlated with lower FMQ post-LT (r = .41, p = .03). GMQ post-LT and height z-scores pre-LT (r = .46, p = .02) and post-LT (r = .45, p < .01) were positively correlated. There was no correlation with presence of ascites, weight z-score, length of hospitalization, and age at LT. CONCLUSIONS: Young children have increased risk of motor delay pre-LT, which may persist post-LT. Severity of liver disease and growth delays may impact motor development, highlighting the need for ongoing rehabilitation pre- and post-LT.
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".