Observational studyDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Gross motor performance of infants with an at-home wearable measurement and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: A concurrent validity study.
Observational study in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote assessment of infant development: Is universal screening of early motor milestones within reach?Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
- Gross motor performance of infants with an at-home wearable measurement and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: A concurrent validity study.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the concurrent validity of assessing infants' gross motor performance with an at-home wearable measurement versus the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS).
methodThis observational study used a new multi-sensor wearable Motor Assessment of Infants with a JUmpsuit (MAIJU) for 67 at-home measurements of 42 infants (60% males; mean age 11.5 months, SD 3.7 months, range 4-18 months). The study collates a normative cohort of typically developing volunteers (n = 17, 65% males; 27 measurements, mean age 11.8 months, SD 3.1 months, range 7-18 months) and a clinical cohort recruited from a neurodevelopmental follow-up clinic (n = 25, 56% males; mean age 11.2 months, SD 3.8 months, range 4-17 months). We correlated the expert-assessed total AIMS score to a holistic assessment of motor development (the BABA Infant Motor Score [BIMS]) from the MAIJU measurements. Additionally, detailed MAIJU-derived metrics were compared to the AIMS scores, to train machine learning-based AIMS predictions.
resultsThere was a very strong correlation (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient [rho] = 0.97, p < 10
interpretationAssessing motor performance with scalable, at-home wearable measurements is highly comparable to the widely used AIMS assessment. An objective, quantitative, and expert-independent motor assessment holds promise for providing benchmarks in geographically distributed health care or clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.