Influencia del nivel de riesgo perinatal sobre el desarrollo motor grueso de los niños prematuros: Estudio observacional de corte transversa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prematurity is one of the main issue of perinatal health; taking into account its high incidence, the morbidity shown in the short and long term and the scarce scientific evidence that determines the influence that risk factors have on motor development in preterm infants, we propose to conduct a study that will analyse the influence that perinatal factors risk have on the gross motor development of this population. Method is based on: cross-sectional observational study on a sample of 261 preterm infants, evaluated from November 2014 to April 2018. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was used to assess the level of gross motor development, the percentile in which is the premature one and the Perinatal Risk Inventory (PERI) to determine the score and the level of perinatal risk. Results are a significant and inverse relationship between perinatal risk and gross motor skills is found in both sexes (p= 0.000). So, the gross motor development of preterm infants is lower as the level of perinatal risk increases. Intracranial hemorrhage and gestational age are the perinatal risk factors that have shown the greatest influence on the gross motor development of preterm infants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".