Prognostic Factors for Poor Cognitive Development in Children Born Very Preterm or With Very Low Birth Weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Cognitive delay is the most common form of impairment among children born very preterm (VPT) at 32 weeks or less or with very low birth weight (VLBW) of 1250 g or less. It is important to identify factors that are robust predictors of long-term outcome because the ability to predict future prognosis will assist in health care and educational service planning and provision. OBJECTIVE: To identify prognostic factors for poor cognitive development in children born VPT or with VLBW. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PyscINFO databases to identify studies published between January 1, 1990, and June 1, 2014, reporting multivariable prediction models for neurodevelopment in VPT or VLBW children. Thirty-one studies comprising 98 risk factor models for cognitive outcome were identified. Two independent reviewers extracted key information on study design, outcome definition, risk factor selection, model development, and reporting and conducted a risk-of-bias assessment. FINDINGS: There was evidence that male sex, nonwhite race/ethnicity, lower level of parental education, and lower birth weight were predictive of global cognitive impairment in children younger than 5 years. In older children, only the influence of parental education was sustained. Male sex was also predictive of language impairment in early infancy, but not in middle childhood. Gestational age was a poor predictor of cognitive outcome, probably because of a reduced discriminatory power in cohorts restricted to a narrow gestational age range. The prognostic value of neonatal brain injury was unclear; however, studies adopted mixed strategies for managing children with physical or neurosensory disability. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The influence of perinatal risk factors on cognitive development of VPT or VLBW children appears to diminish over time as environmental factors become more important. It is difficult to isolate cognitive outcomes from motor and neurosensory impairment, and the strategy for dealing with untestable children has implications for risk prediction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".