Haemophilia Infants Gross Motor Development: Comparisons With Full‐Term and Preterm Infants of the Same Nationality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Infants with haemophilia, due to parental overprotection, have difficulty developing their full motor repertoire of typical gross motor development. It is of great clinical importance to evaluate the motor development of these infants with a standardized assessment tool. AIM: To study the gross motor development in infants with haemophilia, using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and compare it with full-term (FT) and preterm infants (PT). METHODS: Fifteen FT infants with severe or moderate haemophilia A and B were assessed with the AIMS (Group D). The scale is already standardized in FT Greek infants (Group A). Two groups of PT infants were also included, with gestational age >32 weeks and ≤32 weeks, Groups B and C, respectively. The mean Z-scores were tested with the ANOVA procedure, followed by post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: The four groups had significantly different mean Z-scores. Infants in Group A had a mean Z-score of 0 ± 1. Infants in Group B lagged significantly behind by one standard deviation. Preterm infants in Group C had a mean Z-score significantly lower than Group B. Infants in Group D had a mean Z-score significantly lower than Group C. CONCLUSIONS: Motor development in infants with haemophilia significantly lags behind both FT and PT infants. Differences in AIMS scores could be attributed to the reduction of movement activity, since infants with haemophilia are often deprived of certain positions, being held and carried in the parents' arms, as well as from free play time on the floor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".