Physiotherapeutic stimulation in infants with Down syndrome to promote crawling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Down syndrome (DS) is a genetic disorder characterized mainly by ligament laxity and hypotonia. Infants with this syndrome have substantial motor retardation also with crawling. To reach this motor milestone, postural control and head and neck control in the prone position are necessary. Seeking to avoid atypical muscular synergies and facilitate the execution of functional activities, the Bobath Concept aims to stimulate weight transfers, promoting motor acquisitions in the prone, supine, sitting and standing positions. Objective: To evaluate and compare crawling before and after the intervention through the Bobath Concept method in infants with DS. Method: A longitudinal, prospective, evaluative and interventional study was carried out. The sample was composed of 4 infants with DS, aged 7 to 24 months. There were three stages of treatment: evaluation in accordance with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS); short term intervention by the Bobath Concept; and re-evaluation using the same scale. Results: According to statistical analysis, there was no significant difference between pre- and post-treatment (t -3.1705, p=0.0504). However, the results obtained by evaluation and reevaluation, showed progress in infants’ activity, the greatest progress being in the prone position. Infant 4 had the most satisfactory result, in percentage, as much as in the prone position (evolving 9.5%), as in general (evolving 22.4%). Conclusion: Infants submitted to intervention with the Bobath Concept obtained evolution in motor development, when comparing before and after therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 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".