Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) Performance of Early-Term Greek Infants: The Impact of Shorter Gestation on Gross Motor Development among “Term-Born” Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early-term birth (37+0 to 38+6 gestational weeks) may have a negative impact on infants’ neurodevelopment compared to delivery at 39 weeks or beyond. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the gross motor development of early-term infants using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). A total of 1087 healthy infants (559 early-term and 528 full-term infants born at 39+0 to 41+6 weeks of gestation) were studied. Mean AIMS scores were compared between the two groups at monthly intervals. The impact of gestational age on total AIMS scores was assessed by linear regression, after adjustment for chronological age, sex and SGA. Mean total AIMS scores, albeit within normal range, were significantly lower in early-term than full-term infants at the 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th and 12th month of age; differences between groups were within three points. In multivariate regression analysis, a longer gestation by one week had a positive impact on total AIMS score during the first year of life (β = 0.90; 95% CI 0.45, 1.35). In conclusion, early-term infants exhibit worse gross motor performance during the first year of life in comparison with their full-term peers; however, the differences between the two groups are small.
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) | 0.001 | 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".