Assessment of motor development in children from birth to eighteen months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accompaniment of infant development is considered one of the most important initiatives to reach a better quality of life. We sought to evaluate motor development in babies aged zero to 18 months. This is a descriptive, transversal and evaluative study performed in Health Family Centers (CSF) of the municipalities of Fortaleza and Sobral CE), Brazil. The sample was composed of 330 children, 165 from each studied municipality. Data collection took place between February/March 2012 through a predetermined form with child and family variables using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Portuguese version and the Ministry of Health Control Protocol included in the Child Health Booklet (CSC), after approval granted by the Research Ethics Committee. According to results, in the Fortaleza municipality, most children were females born through cesarean section whereas in Sobral there was a predominance of males and natural births. In Fortaleza, 7.2% of children were premature and 6.6% had lower weight at birth while in Sobral, 8.5% were premature and 8.5% were born with low weight. As for the socioeconomic and educational profile of children’s parents/tutors, we found that in both municipalities the majority of them had 11 to 13 years of study, were aged 22 to 35 and did not have a paid occupation. With regards to their socio-demographic profile, most of them had basic sanitation, garbage collection service and ceramic floors. Child motor development was evaluated through the AIMS scale in both municipalities and it was considered normal for most children (307). This was corroborated by the second evaluation, made by the Ministry of Health Control Protocol (CSC) (302 children). The analysis of both documents showed agreement between them, however weak (k=0096; 0.077). When analyzing both results separately, we noticed more concordance among development deficit items. Different evaluation items were identified as “With deficit” or Without Deficit”, resulting in an almost perfect concordance (k=0.879; 0.910) between both instruments. There was also an important connection between the gestational age (p=0.012; 0.000) and the weight at birth (p=0.000; 0.000), considering the complete sample for both documents. We also found a relevant concordance between motor development when considering the full sample and risks factors associated to hospitalization, oxygen therapy and phototherapy. The maternal age showed a significant correlation in Fortaleza (p=0.001; 0.004). The analysis of the full sample (p=0.017; 0.016), the marital status (p=0.054; 0.049) and paid occupations in Sobral (p=0.003; 0.013), also resulted to be closely related to the scale qualifications. As for socio-demographic data, no statistically significant associations were found with regards to development levels according to the evaluation instruments. There was no difference between the children’s motor performance in the two studied municipalities. Both instruments presented high concordance levels in deficit detection and a significant correlation with infant mobility considering the following variables: gestational age, weight at birth, hospitalization, oxygen therapy, phototherapy, maternal age, marital status and mother paid occupation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".