Early intervention on at-risk infants: effect of parent’s guidance and home stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To verify the effectiveness of early intervention in at-risk infants, to analyse the parents' knowledge regarding the quality and quantity of environmental stimuli and the effect of guidance to parents within the home. Method: This is a pilot study with single-blind random distribution. Seven infants of both sexes, aged between 3 and 18 months, participated in this study, divided into a control group (CG) - who received only guidance at the outpatient clinic - and an experimental group (EG) - who received home visits to guide their parents. To investigate the quantity and quality of stimuli in the family environment, the Affordance in the Home Environment for Motor Development - Infant Scale (AHEMD-IS) was used. To assess the infants' motor performance, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was applied. Results: Regarding motor development, there was an improvement of 4 points in the CG and 4.7 points in the EG between the first and second evaluations. When observing opportunities for environmental stimuli, an increase of 3.7 points was found in the CG and 12 points in the EG between the first and second assessments, indicating a greater gain in the EG compared to the CG. Conclusion: The home guidelines had a positive impact on the lives of infants, offering information that provided a stimulating environment with better resources, ensuring better motor development, in addition to minimizing the risks of delay in child development.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".