MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281254474 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.15267

‘Low‐normal’ motor skills in infants at high risk for poor developmental outcomes: A prevalence and prognostic study

2022· article· en· W4281254474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcella Danks, Emma J. Flynn, Peter H. Gray, Elizabeth Hurrion

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMotor skillPediatricsGestational ageConfidence intervalReferralGross motor skillMotor impairmentPregnancyPsychiatryInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To investigate the prevalence and prognostic value of 'low-normal' motor skills in infants at high-risk for poor developmental outcomes. METHOD: Infants born extremely low-birthweight and extremely preterm discharged from neonatal intensive care between 2015 and 2018 completed the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Neuro-Sensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA) at corrected age 4, 8, and 12 months, and Griffiths Mental Development Scale at corrected age 12 months. RESULTS: Participating infants (n = 191) with a mean gestational age (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 26.80 weeks (26.60, 27.1) and mean birthweight (95% CI) of 869 grams (843, 895) included 45 (23.80%) infants small for gestational age. AIMS rated 50.32%, 35.37%, and 14.86% of infants within the 'low-normal' motor skills range (1-2 SD below the mean for age) at 4, 8, and 12 months respectively. Of the infants within the AIMS 'low-normal' skills range, 55.70%, 88.46%, and 59.10% were classified as having impairment by NSMDA at 4, 8, and 12 months respectively. Griffiths assessment at 12 months identified only 7.33% of infants with 'low-normal' skills and 3.33% with motor disability. Minimal motor impairment rating on the NSMDA at 4 or 8 months significantly predicted general development at 12 months. INTERPRETATION: High-risk infants with 'low-normal' motor skills may warrant referral to early intervention as associated impairment represents increased risk for poorer general development outcomes. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: High prevalence of 'low-normal' motor skill exists in high-risk infants. Clinical motor assessment validly identifies infants with motor impairment. Minimal motor impairment in high-risk infants is prognostic of general development. High-risk infants with 'low-normal' motor skills may warrant early intervention. Griffiths Scales of Child Development, Third Edition assessment at 12-months age may under-identify motor difficulties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207