Motor development of preterm and term infants : using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the motor development of infants born preterm and term at four and six months of age, applying the Alberta Infant Motor Scale AIMS-Brazilian version. Methods: Longitudinal, comparative study, conducted in Fortaleza, Ceara, between November/2009 and May/2010. A convenience sample was used, consisting of 24 preterm and 24 term infants. Results: In children aged four months, there was a statistically significant difference in the standing position (p = 0.014) and in six months in all positions (prone, supine, sitting, standing) and total scores. In terms of the percentile, at four and six months respectively, 37.5% of preterm infants showed excellent performance and 54.2%, normal performance. Conclusion: Statistical analysis of gross motor performance between groups of children studied showed differences in the development and evolution of the percentiles of AIMS. Keywords: Child; Child development; Motor activity; Term birth; Infant, premature
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".