Early Motor Development of Breech- and Cephalic-Presenting Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective This study was conducted to determine whether breech-presenting infants have a different pattern of early neuromotor development than cephalic-presenting infants—regardless of mode of delivery—thus explaining both the failure to assume cephalic version at the end of gestation and the higher rates of childhood motor impairments associated with breech presentation. Methods Ninety morphologically normal, term, breech-presenting singletons with birthweights greater than 2500 g were paired with a similar cephalic-presenting infant, matched for gender and mode of delivery (n = 180; 100 delivered abdominally and 80 delivered vaginally). Data on neurological status (Neurological Assessment of the Preterm and Full-term Newborn Infant) and motor performance (Alberta Infant Motor Scale, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, and age of walking) were collected prospectively over the first 18 months of life. This study was designed with a power of .80 to detect a “medium” effect size for motor development using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance techniques. Results Breech-presenting infants had minor transient differences compared with cephalic-presenting infants. First, they had more open popliteal angles at birth (P < .001). Second, they had significantly lower motor scores at 6 weeks than the normative sample (P < .001). At 18 months, three infants were diagnosed with neurological problems, all of whom were delivered electively in the cesarean-breech group. Conclusion As a group, breech-presenting infants do not have a persistent, inherently different pattern of motor development than cephalic-presenting infants. Mode of delivery did not explain the excess neuromotor impairment detected in the subgroup of breech infants. There are transient differences in neuromotor development between breech- and cephalic-presenting infants; whether they are caused by or result from breech presentation remains unclear.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".