Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Children With Hemifacial Microsomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether preadolescent children with hemifacial microsomia (HFM) have higher risk of neurodevelopmental delays than unaffected control individuals. DESIGN: Case-control follow-up study of neurodevelopment in children with and without HFM. SETTING: Case individuals were originally recruited from 26 craniofacial centers across the United States and Canada, and controls were recruited through community pediatricians. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-six children with HFM (cases) and 568 unaffected children (controls). Main Exposure History of HFM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition, the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration-Fifth Edition, and the Academic Competence scales from the Child Behavior Checklist and the Teacher Report Form. RESULTS: Children with HFM scored lower than controls on all measures (effect size = -0.27 to -0.45; P < .001 to P = .008). Compared with controls, cases were 2 to 3 times as likely to score in the at-risk range. Relative to controls, outcomes were worse for male cases and those whose mothers were 25 years or younger at the time of their birth. Cases with HFM plus other malformations had poorer outcomes, as did cases with hearing, vision, or speech impairments. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study, to our knowledge, to show that children with HFM have poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes than unaffected children, but further study using more detailed assessments is indicated. Clinically, the findings suggest that early neurodevelopmental screening is warranted for all children with HFM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".