Gross motor trajectories of pre-term and full-term infants under different parental educational approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore motor trajectories of Brazilian pre-term and full-term infants from 3 to 12 months old whose parents participated in an educational program and had received guidance on gross motor development. Forty-eight Brazilian infants aged 3 months old were divided into Group 1 (full-term infants and their parents who received only verbal guidance, n = 14), Group 2 (full-term infants with parents who received an educative folder in addition to the same verbal guidance, n = 23), and Group 3 (preterm infants with parents who received the same verbal guidance and educative folder, n = 11). The folder had similar information to the verbal guidance; nonetheless, it helped to teach parents and allowed later consultation at home. We applied Alberta Infant Motor Scale, Affordances in Home Environment for Motor Development–Infant Scale, and a questionnaire about infants’ information at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months old. In longitudinal comparison, all groups showed a significant difference for AIMS variables on total score and subscales; all subitems of AHEMD-IS; and time spent in prone, supine, sitting, and standing positions. In general, no differences were found between groups. Motor trajectory, home opportunities, and parental positioning practices were similar between full-term and preterm infants with different guidance approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".