Effectiveness of a training program for the acquisition of motor milestones in infants: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In infants, the acquisition of all motor milestones is considered an expression of correct motor development during the first months of life. An association between typical motor development of the newborn and cognitive areas has been established. Few studies have evaluated the efficiency of parents' knowledge of expected milestones in healthy infants. This study aims to determine whether parents' knowledge of specific tasks can improve the achievement of all gross motor milestones in the newborn. METHOD: The current study examined gross motor development in term-born infants without pathologies at 9, 12, and 15 months and the effectiveness of a training program developed for parents. The research group comprised 82 full-term infants divided into an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG) of 41 subjects each. A randomized clinical trial study was performed. The routine follow-up program consisted of four informative sessions on the experimental group at the beginning of each trimester with information about the expected motor milestones and how to stimulate their infants to achieve them. The gross motor development of the participants was measured using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. An ANCOVA test was performed to assess the possible influence of sex, type of birth, or the presence of siblings controlled and uncontrolled as confounding variables on the results. RESULTS: The initial baseline assessment showed no statistical differences between groups (p > 0,05). After controlling confounding variables, at 9 months the EG scored 5,5 points higher than the CG (p < 0,001). At 12 months, EG scored 3,7 points higher than CG (p < 0,001). At 15 months, EG scored 2,2 points higher than CG (p = 0,001). The experimental group scored significantly higher, with a 25-point higher percentile in each assessment. CONCLUSION: A learning program aimed at increasing parents' knowledge of their infant´s gross motor development improved it. The information collected will help professionals who support parents in monitoring their babies. Future studies using larger sample sizes, analysing other domains of global infant development, or investigating the possible influence of other parental factors are recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04693494. Registered December 28, 2020, retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04693494 .
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 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 | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".