Motor development of infants (6–12 months) with low birth weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the motor development (MD) and growth of infants born with low birth weight (LBW) versus adequate birth weight (ABW) by using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). METHODS: The cross-sectional study including LBW infants (aged 6–12 months) followed at an outpatient clinic from a University Hospital in Brazil and a group of infants of the same age with ABW. The variables were recorded as maternal, birth, and infant conditions. The infants were assessed for MD using the AIMS. RESULTS: In total, 98 infants (38 LBW versus 60 ABW) were evaluated and no statistically significant differences were found in demographic characteristics and in the AIMS results. The AIMS results of the total sample were suspicious or abnormal MD in 44 (45%) of total infants. Higher frequency of suspected or abnormal motor behavior was found in the age group between 9 and 12 (54.6%) months. CONCLUSIONS: A frequency of 45% of suspected or abnormal behavior was observed in the evaluated infants, with a higher frequency of occurrence in those aged 9–12 months (54.6%).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".