Evaluation of the neuropsychomotor development in children of 6 to 12 months old born with low birth weight according to the Screening Development Denver Test II and Alberta Infant Motor Scale.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the developmental assessment according to two instruments, the Denver Developmental Screening Test II (DDST II) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) in infants between 6 and 12 months age with low birth weight (LBW) and adequate birth weight (ABW). Method: Analytical cross-sectional study. Exclusion criteria: congenital malformations, chromosomal abnormalities, chronic non-progressive encephalopathy (NPE) and Apgar score at 5 min < 7. Variables: maternal, family and infant data (birth conditions, morbidity and nutritional status at the time of motor assessment). Results: Ninety-eight children participated in this study, 38 with LBW and 60 with ABW. A positive association was observed in the comparison between the two instruments in all children, according to Cramér's V analysis (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in DDST II and AIMS assessments in children with LBW and ABW, nor with the variables analyzed. In this sample, 14 (36.8%) and 18 (47.4%) of the children with LBW had suspect DDST II and suspect/abnormal AIMS, respectively. Between children with ABW, 12 (20.0%) had suspect DDST II and 26 (43.3%) had suspect/abnormal AIMS. It was observed high rates of motor alterations in both tests and in both groups. Conclusions: The present study suggests a similarity between both assessments, the DDST II and the AIMS in children with LBW and ABW. High rates of motor alterations were observed in both tests and in both groups.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".