Influence of the home environment on the motor development of infants with Down syndrome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Children with Down syndrome present impairments in neuro-psychomotor development, which are related to muscle tone, postural control and balance. Motor development is influenced by biological, psychological, social and environmental factors. Thus, the environment in which the infant is in can facilitate the neuro-psychomotor development. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of the home environment on the motor development of infants with Down syndrome. Sixteen infants with Down syndrome were divided into Group I (3 to 11 months of age) and Group II (12 to 18 months of age), evaluated by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development Infant-Scale (AHEMD-IS) questionnaire. Data analysis was performed using the Kruskall-Wallis test, Spearman’s correlation coefficient and the likelihood ratio test. The results showed a significant positive relationship between the gross AIMS score and the variety of stimuli (p=0.01, r=0.78) and with the AHEMD-IS questionnaire score (p=0.02, r=0.74) in Group 2. Family income and affordances with motor function toys (p=0.05, r=0.49) were also correlated, but the correlation was weak. The home environment plays an important role in the motor development of children with Down syndrome aged between 12 and 18 months, as it provides opportunities for experiencing and experimenting. Better suited environments provide better motor performance.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.171 | 0.006 |
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 it