Triplet Infants with Birthweight ≤ 1250 Grams: How Well Do They Compare with Twin and Singleton Infants at 36 to 48 Months of Age?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if triplet infants with birthweight < or = 1250 g were at increased risk of long-term disability compared with similar birthweight and gestational age singletons and twins. This was a retrospective cohort study of < or = 1250-g infants admitted to a regional neonatal intensive care unit from 1986 to 2001 with follow-up to 36 to 48 months corrected gestational age. Outcomes studied were cognitive ability, cerebral palsy, and neurosensory impairment at 36 to 48 months. Enrollment was 1717 infants: 59 triplets, 402 twins, and 1256 singletons. Triplet infants differed from twin or singleton infants because they were more likely to have older, married mothers (relative risk [RR] 3.62, 95% CI 1.31, 5.94), be products of assisted reproductive technology pregnancies (RR 29.59, 95% CI 13.97, 62.68), be exposed to antenatal steroids (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.38, 1.75), and were all delivered by cesarean section. Triplet infants had lower risk of having intraventricular hemorrhage (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05, 0.75). The risk of cerebral palsy, cognitive delay, total major disability, or chronic lung disease was similar in triplet and twin infants compared with singleton infants. The lower risk of having intraventricular hemorrhage in triplet infants may have been due to the use of antenatal corticosteroids and cesarean section delivery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".