Physical therapy evaluation in infants who had perinatal asphyxia and who underwent therapeutic hypothermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ntroduction: Neonatal asphyxia is a condition that can contribute to the neuromotor develo pment changes. Case Report Description : we will report eight cases of newborns (NBs) who suffered neonatal asphyxia and who underwent therapeutic hypothermia protocol in the first 72 hours of life. Was performed Neuromotor Neonatal Screening (NNS) examination during hospitalization, and later, f ollowing clinic, with a year of life adjusted age, being applied to Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Results: NNS was applied in 8 terms NBs, and 6 NBs had adequate tone and 2 showed tone alterations. In outpatient evaluation it was observed that four children had typical motor development at age, and three had atypical motor development in AIMS, one child did not attend the outpatient follow - up. Conclusion: The therapeutic hypothermia protocol seems to be a neuroprotective for newborns with neonatal as phyxia and that even the NBs who initially had scores within the normal range, may have delayed motor development during the first year of life. However there is need of further research with a larger number of participants to obtain more conclusive result s.
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 | 0.001 | 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".