The Comparison of Three Assessment Scales in a Neonatal Unit in Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between the following three assessments: the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS), the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), and the General Movement Assessment (GMA). 29 patients from the neonatal unit of the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Hospital were examined. The study was conducted between feedings by a person properly trained in the use of the NBAS, the AIMS, and the GMA. The average postmenstrual age of the examined newborns was 35.6 weeks. The average week of gestation was the 29 th , the average birth weight was 1469 g, and the Median Apgar score in the fifth minute of life was 7. A relationship was found between the AIMS and the NBAS. It was concluded that the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale may be used to determine the motor development of preterm infants. Moreover, it is advisable to use more than one assessment method in order to adjust the intervention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".