Does premature birth affect Brazilian parents’ practices related to infant positioning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To verify whether the time spent in prone, supine, or seated positions differed between term and preterm infants; and to determine whether a single verbal guidance session for parents changed the time spent in different positions, and, consequently, the motor development scores, after one month in preterm infants. METHODS: Sixty-one infants from a full-term and preterm group from Brazil were included. Motor development was assessed by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the parents registered the time spent in each position on a 24-hour schedule. A month after verbal guidance, a second assessment was performed only on the preterm infants. RESULTS: The positioning times awake determined for the full-term and preterm parents were similar. Preterm infants spent more time in the prone sleeping position (2.1 vs. 0.8 h; p=0.037) than full-term infants. The AIMS percentile scores did not differ significantly between the groups. For preterm infants, the time spent in all positions did not change during the second assessment (n=18). CONCLUSIONS: The fact that some parents position their infants in the prone posture during sleeping periods reinforce the importance of parental education approaches for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) prevention during the first months of life. The verbal guidance provided to parents of preterm infants did not influence the AIMS percentile and time spent in various positions but increased preterm parents' confidence in placing their infants in a prone position to play.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".