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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".