Early Physiotherapy Intervention Program for Preterm Infants and Parents: A Randomized, Single-Blind Clinical Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The early developmental interventions might be designed with a preventative approach to improving the development of at-risk preterm infants. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an early physiotherapy intervention on preterm infants' motor and global development, and on parents' stress index. METHODS: 48 infants were enrolled and randomized into two groups. Infants allocated to the intervention group received an early physiotherapy intervention, based on parental education sessions and tactile and kinesthetic stimulation during the NICU period, as well as a home-based activity program. The intervention commenced after 32 weeks post-menstrual age and ended at 2 months corrected age. Infants allocated to the control group received the usual care based on the NIDCAP-care. RESULTS: No differences were found between groups on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale at 2- or 8-months corrected age. Infants in the intervention group showed more optimal fine motor, problem-solving, personal-social, and communication development at 1 month corrected age. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed no effect on the early physiotherapy intervention. Results might be related to the dose or intensity of the intervention, but also to the poor parental compliance. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03313427.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it