Outcomes for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Small for Gestational Age Preterm Infants in Canadian Tertiary NICUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the outcomes for symmetrical (sSGA) versus asymmetrical (aSGA) small for gestational age (SGA) < 32 weeks preterm infants. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 12,179 eligible infants admitted to the Canadian tertiary neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) over a 7-year-period in the Canadian Neonatal Network database were subcategorized as aSGA (n = 536), sSGA (n = 732), or appropriate for GA (AGA, n = 10,911). Baseline demographics, mortality, and major morbidities were compared using multivariable analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: sSGA had higher GA (p < 0.01) and more antenatal tobacco exposure (p = 0.03). Although both the SGA groups had worse outcomes than AGA controls, aSGA versus sSGA comparison revealed lower odds (AOR [CI]) for mortality and chronic lung disease (CLD) for aSGA in the entire cohort (0.45 [0.27, 0.75] and 0.61 [0.44, 0.84], respectively) as well as for infants < 28 weeks GA (0.50 [0.27, 0.92] and 0.47 [0.29, 0.77], respectively). aSGA infants < 28 weeks GA had comparable outcomes to AGA except higher odds for CLD (1.61 [1.13, 2.27]). sSGA infants needed longer hospital stay and had higher use of oxygen and continuous positive airway pressure than aSGA. CONCLUSION: Among SGA infants < 32 weeks GA, significant intragroup differences exist in the neonatal outcomes and hospital resource utilization depending upon the presence or absence of relative "head sparing."
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".