Physical therapy with toys and dog-assisted therapy in infants: observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study aimed to compare physical therapy with toys with dog-assisted therapy in the neuromotor development of 4-month-old infants with and without neuromotor alterations. This is a qualitative descriptive and observational study carried out with 10 infants, who were evaluated by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, divided into Group 1 (G1) and Group 2 (G1), and subdivided into Toy Group (TG1 and TG2) and Dog Group (DG1 and DG2) for the performance of fortnightly interventions. By the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development - Infant Scale, we assessed the opportunities present in the home environment. Qualitative data were analyzed using photos and videos. The presence of a dog in DG1 and DG2 resulted in a relaxed and fun environment, infants interested in touching the animal’s fur, alternating limb movements, eye contact, sound production, increased social interaction, and feeling of security. In TG1 and TG2, decrease in motivation was observed as well as the absence of sound production and eye contact by infants, and interest in touch restricted to toys that had different colors and sounds, with little agitation and motivation for motor skills in those groups. We concluded that the dog’s presence promoted better motor, social, affective, and cognitive results. Animal-assisted therapy can be an effective method to support conventional physical therapy for infants with delayed neuropsychomotor 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".