Infants motor development in parental intervention during childcare: case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Child development should be promoted by the family with formal support from childcare services. This study aims to analyze the motor performance of infants submitted to parental intervention in childcare. This is an observational, longitudinal and descriptive case series study with 215 infants aged 0-18 months, who were cared for at a Primary Health Care Unit in a Brazilian Northeastern capital. The infants’ motor performance was assessed by the Alberta infant motor scale and instructions were transmitted to parents according to the observed motor delay. We observed that 77.7% of the infants had their first appointment in their first semester of life, 57.6% had low risk and 76.7% had normal motor performance. Significant relationships between risk stratification and gestational age and between risk stratification and motor performance were found. The intervals between evaluations ranged from 7-252 days. A higher percentage of infants with motor delays was found in those who were taken to childcare after the third trimester of life. All infants who attended childcare and were identified with suspected delay or atypical development improved motor performance by the third evaluation. Infants who are taken to childcare early, for guidance on parental intervention, recover from motor development delay, but most families either do not attend childcare follow-up, or are long overdue for their appointment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".