MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060617672 · doi:10.1136/adc.2006.102947

Does intrauterine growth restriction affect quality of life in adulthood?

2007· article· en· W2060617672 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dale Spence, Fiona Alderdice, Marlene Stewart, Henry L. Halliday, Angela H. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityUniversity of BristolQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicineAffect (linguistics)Quality of life (healthcare)Intrauterine growth restrictionGrowth restrictionYoung adultEarly adulthoodGerontologyPediatricsPhysiologyPregnancyGeneticsNursingCommunicationGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare health-related quality of life in 50-year-old adults who were born at term (> or =37 to 42 weeks' gestation) with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR; birth weight <10th centile) and a group born at term without IUGR (> or =10th centile). DESIGN: Case control study. SETTING: A large regional maternity hospital in Northern Ireland. SUBJECTS: 235 adults who were born between 1954 and 1956 in the Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast. 111 subjects born with IUGR and 124 controls with normal birth weight for gestation were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Health-related quality of life in adulthood was assessed using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: The two groups reported similar health-related quality of life on each of the eight dimensions of the SF-36 and there were no significant differences between them. Adjusting for potential confounding variables did not alter this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The similarity of SF-36 scores indicated that those born with IUGR did not perceive this to adversely influence health-related quality of life at 50 years of age compared with those with normal birth weight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207