The Best Start Trial: A randomised controlled trial of ultra-early parent-administered physiotherapy for infants at high risk of cerebral palsy or motor delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether ultra-early physiotherapy commenced during neonatal intensive care unit admission is of value for optimising developmental outcomes in preterm/term infants at high-risk of cerebral palsy or motor-delay. AIMS: To determine whether ultra-early parent-administered physiotherapy to preterm/term high- risk infants commenced at earliest from 34-weeks post menstrual age, improves motor outcomes at 16-weeks corrected age (CA) compared to usual care. METHODS: Single-blind randomised controlled pilot study with 30 infant participants. The primary outcome was the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) total score at 16-weeks CA. Secondary outcomes included (i) parent Depression Anxiety and Stress Score and Parent Perceptions Survey at 16-weeks CA; and (ii) Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 12-months CA. RESULTS: There were no clinically worthwhile effects at 16-weeks CA on the AIMS (mean between-group difference, 95% CI: -0.2, -2.4 to 2.0) or most secondary outcomes. However, the parents' "perception of treatment effectiveness" and "perception of change" favoured the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, there was no clinically worthwhile effect of ultra-early parent-administered physiotherapy over usual care on the AIMS. However, the intervention was feasible for infants, acceptable to parents and parents perceived a benefit of treatment. Whilst this trial did not demonstrate treatment effectiveness using the AIMS, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the small sample size, the low responsivity of the AIMS to change in motor performance and the heterogeneity of the participants. Therefore, the intervention should not be abandoned on the basis of this trial, but rather further evaluated in a larger trial that addresses some of the learnings from this one.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".