Silent victims of the COVID-19 pandemic may be infants who are at a risk of a neurodevelopmental delay: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to reveal the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on neuromotor development in infants (aged 6–24 months). A total of 75 infants were included in this cross-sectional observational study. Neuromotor development was assessed using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Denver Developmental Screening Test II (DDST II). The AIMS results showed that 14.7% were classified as abnormal, 10.6% as suspicious, and 74.7% as normal. The DDST II results showed that 14.7% of the participants were classified as suspicious, 13.3% as abnormal, and 72% as normal. This study found that 25% of infants aged 6–24 months who experienced the COVID-19 pandemic exhibited questionable or abnormal neurological development. This reveals the negative impact of the pandemic on neuromotor development. Delays were observed more frequently in fine and gross motor areas.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05778357.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".