Comparison of Current Health, Functional Limitations, and Health Care Use of Young Adults Who Were Born With Extremely Low Birth Weight and Normal Birth Weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the current health status, physical ability, functional limitations, and health care use of extremely low birth weight and normal birth weight young adults. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted of a population-based cohort of 166 extremely low birth weight survivors (501-1000 g birth weight; 1977-1982 births) and a group of 145 sociodemographically comparable normal birth weight individuals. Current health status, history of illnesses, hospitalizations, use of health resources, and physical self-efficacy were assessed through questionnaires that were administered to the young adults by masked interviewers. RESULTS: Individuals completed the assessments at a mean age of 23 years. Neurosensory impairments were identified in 27% of extremely low birth weight and 2% of normal birth weight individuals. No differences were reported in the current health status for physical or mental summary scores. Extremely low birth weight young adults reported a higher prevalence of chronic health conditions in the past 6 months. A significantly higher proportion of extremely low birth weight individuals had functional limitations in seeing, hearing, and dexterity and experienced clumsiness and learning difficulties. Except for prescription glasses, medications for depression, and home-care services for extremely low birth weight individuals, there were no significant differences between groups in use of health care resources. Extremely low birth weight individuals had significantly weaker hand grip strength and lower scores for physical self-efficacy, perceived physical ability, and physical self-confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Extremely low birth weight young adults seem to enjoy similar current health status to their normal birth weight peers. However, they continue to have significantly poorer physical abilities and a higher prevalence of chronic health conditions and functional limitations. Contrary to expectations, they do not pose a significant burden to the health care system at young adulthood.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".