Influence of Body Position on the Motor Development of Preterm Infants: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To analyze the influence of body position on the motor development of preterm infants in the first year of life corrected for prematurity. Methods This controlled, randomized, open trial included 30 preterm infants randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: prone group (n = 9), supine group (n = 10), and control group (n = 11). Intervention: Motor development was assessed at four time points using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: first outpatient visit and at 4, 8 and 12 months corrected age. Results In the third assessment at 8 months corrected age, the supine group exhibited better motor development than the other groups (p = 0.02). In the control group, the number of infants with normal development decreased from 11 (100%) in the first assessment to 5 (45.45%) in the last assessment. Most infants of mothers who received guidance on body positioning achieved normal motor development in the first year of life (63.1%). Greater dispersion from normal Alberta Infant Motor Scale scores was observed in infants at 8 and 12 months of age. Conclusions Guidance on body positioning of preterm infants at home appears to have a positive influence in the first year of life. Child care strategies after hospitalization should be supported to permit full development of the child. What’s New This study reinforces home care programs with specialized orientation for motor development of preterm newborns. By the end of the first year of life most infants in the experimental groups (supine and prone positions) achieved a normal motor development, which did not happen in the control group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".