Postnatal growth failure in preterm infants: ascertainment and relation to long-term outcome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Traditional measure of postnatal growth failure assessment has poor discriminatory power for long-term outcomes. Our objective was to identify measure of postnatal growth failure associated with long-term outcome in preterm infants born at < 28 weeks' gestation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four measures of defining postnatal growth failure at 36 weeks corrected gestational age: (1) weight < 10(th) centile, (2) weight < 3(rd) centile, (3) z score difference from birth > 1 and, (4) z score difference from birth > 2; were compared for their predictive values and strength of association with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18-24 months. RESULTS: Postnatal growth failure defined as a decrease in z score of > 2 between birth and 36 weeks corrected gestational age had the best predictive values compared to other postnatal growth failure measures, however, it was significantly associated with psychomotor developmental (P=0.006) but not with mental developmental indices (P=0.379). CONCLUSION: Postnatal growth failure defined by z score change influenced psychomotor but not mental tasks in this cohort. This method of ascertainment could be useful to identify infants who might benefit from nutritional interventions.
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.
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 it