Twinning on the brain: The effect on neurodevelopmental outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twinning is currently considered a complex multifactorial trait. Few studies have explored how the unique genetic and environmental influences that create twinning affect phenotypes and outcomes. Previous data has shown that twins account for a significant proportion of preterm and low-birth-weight infants, who are at risk for long-term neurodevelopmental disabilities such as cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment. More recently, it has been postulated that even without these co-morbidities, twinning in and of itself may incur a neurodevelopmental disadvantage even among term newborns. The purpose of this review is to report primarily on neuromotor outcomes of twins compared to singletons. In addition, we describe specific environmental risk factors among twins which are associated with poorer outcomes. Several putative neurodevelopmental modulators are explored, including death of a co-twin, chorionicity, birth weight discordance, and twin-twin transfusion. By teasing out environmental influences that potentially influence neurocognitive outcomes, families can receive more specific counseling and developmental services can be provided to those twins at especially high risk.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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".