Parental intervention improves motor development in infants at risk: case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Early intervention based on parental activities promotes cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development, which are determinants for the child’s health. However, studies about early intervention with parental education are scarce. The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of parental intervention in the motor development of infants. This is a case series, longitudinal, and interventional study, with 100 infants at risk, aged 0-18 months. Motor development of infants was assessed by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, and the parents received information about positioning and exercises depending on the child’s motor score. Risk factors were not related to infants’ motor development. However, these risk factors were related to gestational age, which was related to motor development. After parental early intervention, the sample frequency increased from 45% to 69% in the group of children with normal motor development. Frequency was reduced from 55% to 31% in the group with delayed development. Prenatal and/or perinatal risk factors can cause prematurity, and consequently, delays in children’s motor development. For these infants, early intervention protocols with parental education are effective to stimulate a normal motor development of children at risk in follow-up in outpatient clinics.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.702 | 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".