Impact of physiotherapy on neuromotor development of premature newborns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The population of children born prematurely has increased in line with improving the quality of perinatal care. It is essential to ensure to these children a healthy development. Objective We evaluate the neuromotor development of a group of preterm infants regularly assisted by a physiotherapy service in comparison to full-term newborns, checking, so the impact of the service. Materials and methods We randomly assigned preterm and full-term infants that formed two distinct groups. The group of preterm infants was inserted into a monitoring program of physiotherapy while the other infants were taken as a control group not receiving any assistance in physiotherapy. The groups were compared using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) at forty-week, four and six months of corrected gestational age and the scores were compared using Student's t-test, assuming a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). Results The preterm group had significantly lower scores at 40th week compared to the control group, but subsequent scores showed no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion The timely and adequate stimulation was efficient to promote the motor development of premature infants included in a follow up clinic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".