Investigation of the relationship between oral motor feeding development and gross motor development between preterm and term infants at 10- to 12-month postnatal age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Immature central nervous system, extended stay in the neonatal intensive care unit, and sensory experience deficiency may contribute to oral and gross motor delay in preterm infants. Current study aimed to investigate oral and motor development in preterm infants. Methods Twenty-nine preterm infants and 28 term infants were evaluated within the scope of the study. Oral motor feeding development was assessed with the Schedule for Oral Motor Assessment, and motor development was evaluated with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. All analyses were performed using SPSS 22. The study was approved by the Gazi University Clinical Researches Ethics Committee (no: 25901600–23). Results There was a correlation between the Schedule for Oral Motor Assessment categories (solid, semisolid, cracker, puree, bottle, and cup) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale score (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between groups in the Schedule for Oral Motor Assessment’s solid, semisolid, cracker, and puree categories and total score (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between groups regarding the Alberta Infant Motor Scale score (p < 0.05). Conclusion Preterm infants come behind their term peers in motor and oral motor feeding performance. These two areas of development can influence each other. For this reason, oral motor feeding problems should be emphasized as well as motor problems in physiotherapy rehabilitation evaluations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".