Intervenção precoce em lactentes de risco: efeito das orientações aos pais e dos estímulos domiciliares
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To verify the efficacy of early intervention in at-risk infants, to analyze the parents' knowledge of the quality and quantity of environmental stimuli and the effect of orientations at home on parents. Methods: It is a simple blinded randomized pilot study. Seven infants of both sexes, aged between 3 and 18 months, participated in this study and were divided into two groups: control group (CG) – which received orientations only at the ambulatory – and the experimental group (EG) – which received orientations also at home. 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) scale was used. To assess the motor performance of infants, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was applied. Results: In relation to motor development, there was an improvement of 4 points in the CG and of 4.7 points in the EG between the first and second evaluation. When observed the opportunities of environmental stimuli, it was found an increase of 3.7 points in the GC and 12 points in the GE between the first and the second evaluation, indicating a greater gain in GE compared to GC. Conclusion: The research had positive repercussions on infants, offering information to provide a stimulating environment with better resources, guaranteeing a better motor development, besides minimizing the risks for delayed 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".