The Validity of the Gross Motor Function Measure for Use in Extremely Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To examine the validity of the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) in assessing gross motor function (GMF) of extremely preterm infants relative to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Methods The retrospective study included 60 extremely preterm infants born at <28 weeks gestational who were assessed for gross motor function using GMFM88 and AIMS at 6 and 12 months of corrected age (CA). The correlations between the AIMS raw scores and the total scores of both GMFM versions at 6 and 12 months CA were assessed. Results GMFM66 and GMFM88 total scores showed moderate to strong correlation with AIMS (p <0.001). GMFM66 and GMFM88 scores were significantly different between infants who received AIMS scores above and below the 10th percentile (p < 0.05). Conclusions The GMFM had good validity in assessing GMF in extremely preterm infants at 6 and 12 months CA
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 | 0.023 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".