Longitudinal associations between infant tummy time and development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: National and international guidelines recommend tummy time as a form of physical activity for infants who are not yet mobile but evidence gaps exist. Purpose: Examine the longitudinal associations of tummy time with development and the acquisition of gross motor milestones in the first 18 months of life. Methods: Participants were 411 parents of infants from the Early Movers project in Edmonton, Canada. Tummy time was measured using a questionnaire and the Ages & Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) developmental screening tool was administered at 2, 4, and 6 months. In a subsample (n=127), tummy time was measured using a time-use diary at the same time points and gross motor development was assessed using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) at 6 months. Parents reported when six major gross motor milestones were acquired according to World Health Organization criteria. Linear mixed models were conducted. Results: Higher questionnaire and time-use diary measures of tummy time overtime were significantly associated with higher ASQ-3 and AIMS scores as well as earlier acquisition of crawling, independent standing and walking milestones. Higher tummy time, as measured by the questionnaire, was also significantly associated with better personal-social development and earlier acquisition of independent sitting and assisted standing and walking milestones. Conclusions: Tummy time in the first 6 months of life was consistently associated with more advanced gross motor development. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stollery Children's Hospital Foundation through the Women and Children’s Health Research Institute, and the University of Alberta.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".