Desenvolvimento motor de lactentes expostos ao vírus da imunodeficiência humana (HIV)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: motor development has been discussed and tackled harder since the 70s.Theories try to explain what he has greater influence on its course is the biological maturation or living environment.Besides the importance of the initial bond with the infant's caregiver reference and factors that may affect culturally and clinically in child development.Objective: To determine the motor development of infants exposed to HIV that make use of antiretroviral medication.Method: This is a cross-sectional study conducted at the Center for Reference and Training for STD I AIDS in São Paulo, from November 2009 to March 2010, with a convenience sample consisting of infants born to infected mothers, with ages a day of life 18 months, only one delivery at term and who had used or still used, the antiretroviral medication.The instruments were used: structured questionnaire (socio-demographic and medicai-clinicai) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.Results:Predominantly the infants had a score for the suitable age, and possessed three percentile lower than expected and had evidence of social and environmental risk factors for the delay there.That is, the majority of infants to supports a result without alteration of the engine in this group.Final considerations: the fact of being children of infected mothers and to make use of antiretroviral drugs not excelled at other variables that could have consequences for the evolution of motor development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".