Early motor development: risk factors for delay in a population study in Southern Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess risk factors associated with motor development delay at three months of age. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with mothers and their three-month-old babies in Southern Brazil. The Bayley-III Scale of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-III) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) were used to assess motor development. RESULTS: We evaluated 756 mothers and their three-month-old babies. The overall mean motor development assessed by the BSID-III and the AIMS was 104.7 (SD 13.5) and 55.4 (SD 25.4), respectively. When assessed by the BSID-III, the lowest motor development scores were among babies born by cesarean delivery (p = 0.002), prematurely (p < 0.001), and with low birth weight (p < 0.001). When assessed by the AIMS, babies born prematurely (p = 0.002) and with low birth weight (p=0.004) had the lowest motor development means. After a cluster analysis, we found that babies born by cesarean delivery, with low birth weight, and prematurely had more impaired motor development compared with children born without any risk factors. CONCLUSION: Identifying risk factors allows the implementation of early interventions to prevent motor development delay and, therefore, reduce the probability of other future problems.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".