MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1828168865 · doi:10.1093/pch/11.5.275

Teenagers born at extremely low birth weight

2006· article· en· W1828168865 on OpenAlexaff
Michael F. Whitfield, Ruth E. Grunau

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstitutePolicyWise for Children & FamiliesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyLow birth weightSocioeconomic statusDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyMedicinePopulationPsychiatryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescence constitutes a major transition for extremely low birth weight (ELBW) teenagers. Recent studies of ELBW teenagers born in the 1980s have provided information about the growth and developmental characteristics of these individuals in adolescence and in early adulthood. ELBW teenagers are shorter and lighter than their full-term peers, and have a smaller head circumference. Cognitive and academic vulnerabilities documented during the school years, particularly difficulties with nonverbal intelligence and arithmetic, persist into late adolescence. Many ELBW children struggle in school and have lower academic achievement levels. The self-concept of ELBW teenagers is generally similar to that of their full-term peers, but their parents perceive them to be more vulnerable over a wide range of behavioural and psychosocial dimensions, particularly depression and attention. ELBW teenagers perceive themselves as needing more assistance in job seeking than do their peers. Physical activity levels and fitness in late adolescence are significantly lower in ELBW teenagers than in their full-term peers, constituting a potential additional health hazard in later life. The outcomes of ELBW teenagers are significantly influenced by socioeconomic, family and parenting factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207