Motor Development Evaluation of Low Birth WeightInfants and Adequate Birth Weight Infants Between 6 and 12 Months Age According to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Low birth weight (LBW) is established by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a birth weight less than 2500 grams, regardless of the gestational age and it is considered as a major public health problem associated with a series of short and long-term consequences including the risk of delayed motor development. Objective: To describe the motor development according to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) in infants born with low birth weight and adequate birth weight (ABW). Method: a cross-sectional study carried out between April 2016 and April 2017 with infants between 6 and 12 months age born with less than 2500 grams and followed up at the HSP / HU UNIFESP Low Birth Weight Clinic and a group of infants born with adequate birth weight enrolled in a Primary Health Care Unit at São Paulo’s metropolitan region. Variables: maternal conditions (socioeconomic, gestational intercurrences), birth (weight, gestational age, intercurrences) and infants (environmental and anthropometry). All children were evaluated with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the motor development was graded as normal (percentile> 25), suspect (percentile between 5 and 25) or abnormal (percentile <5). Results: 38 children from the LBW group and 60 children from the ABW group were evaluated. Socioeconomic characteristics and mother’s education from both groups were similar. Suspected or abnormal motor skills were observed in 18 (47.4%) and 26 (43.3%) children in the LBW and ABW groups, respectively. The highest percentage of suspected and abnormal motor skills was found in the group between 9 and 12 months old, with 54.6% in the LBW group and 58.8% in the ABW group. Conclusion: High suspicious or abnormal rates were observed in all the evaluated situations, with higher percentages between 9 and 12 months age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".