Variability and pathways in longitudinal trajectories of early gross motor development in healthy, term born infants.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: With the importance of repeated measurements versus on-time measurement becoming more distinct, insight in longitudinal early gross motor development in typically developing infants is needed. This study explored and described longitudinal gross motor development in healthy, term born infants measured every two months from the age of 3.5 till 12.5 months. Primary objectives were: explore and describe intra and interindividual variability and explore gross motor development and identify groups of individuals with common pathways.\nMethods: This study was a prospective longitudinal observational pilot, part of the study Gross mOtor Development of Infants using home-Video registration with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale following infants over time. Intra- and interindividual variability of gross motor development was visually explored and described using z-scores and cut-off below -1 standard deviation (SD). Longitudinal individual raw scores, general linear model and fitting a regression function were used to identify common pathways.\nResults: The final pilot cohort consist of 72 healthy infants, term born with a gestational age of 39.8(±1.3) weeks and a birthweight of 3512(±385) grams. Difference in z-scores over time varied between 4.07 and 0.02 with 61.1% of the infants showing z-scores below -1SD at some point and 40.3% more than once. Two groups of individuals with common pathways were identified through visual exploration and confirmed by repeated measurement ANOVA and curve estimation. These pathways represent early developers (n=32) and late bloomers (n=40). \nConclusion: Findings of this study suggest gross motor development shows intra- and intervariability with different rate in emergence of gross motor abilities in Dutch healthy typically developing individuals. These findings support the premise that single-time measurements might not be fit for assessment of gross motor development at early ages. Gross motor development is distinguished by two different pathways identifying early developers and late bloomers. \nClinical Relevance: These findings underline the importance of longitudinal screening for gross motor development in order to achieve adequate assumptions and practice. Professionals should realise divergent scores might still be a component of typical development and room for spontaneous increase should be motivated.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".