Effects of prenatal stress on infant motor development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The study aimed to investigate the correlation between prenatal maternal stress (PMS) experienced by women during pregnancy and perinatal risk factors and infant motor development, as assessed by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Aim of the study It was hypothesised that infants born to mothers who experienced PMS have lower levels of motor development during their first year of life compared to infants of mothers who did not experience PMS. Material and methodology. The test was conducted on 171 women and their 179 children. The subjects were divided into two groups: 1) mothers who experienced PMS and 2) mothers who did not experience PMS. The same key was applied to divide the study infants into two subgroups: 1) infants of women experiencing PMS and 2) infants of women not experiencing PMS. Each infant was assessed using the standardised AIMS tool. Results. The study results suggest that infants of mothers experiencing PMS score lower on neurodevelopmental assessments, persisting at least 12 months after birth, than infants of mothers not experiencing PMS. Moreover, a correlation was demonstrated between stress during pregnancy and factors such as gestational age, mode of delivery, birth weight, and Apgar scores. Conclusions. Stress experienced by mothers during pregnancy can affect motor development in infancy. Also, perinatal factors such as the week and type of labour, birth weight, and Apgar score should not be underestimated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".