Gender differences in the developmental outcomes of children with congenital cardiac defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the developmental and functional outcomes at school entry between boys and girls born with a congenital cardiac defect who required early surgical correction. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort of 94 children, including 49 percent boys, were followed up to 5 years of age and assessed for developmental progress. Developmental measures included Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - cognitive; Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - receptive language; Peabody Developmental Motor Scale - motor; and Child Behaviour Checklist - behaviour. Measures of function included the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale and Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM). RESULTS: The mean scores of the boys on the WeeFIM subscales, such as self-care, mobility, cognition, were significantly lower than that of the girls. There was a trend for a greater proportion of boys to have abnormalities on neurological examination (boys 37.5 percent abnormal, girls 19.5 percent abnormal). Verbal, performance, and full scale Intellectual Quotients were 5-7 points lower in boys but did not reach significance (full scale Intellectual Quotient: boys 87.7 plus or minus 22.2; girls 93.9 plus or minus 19.3). Boys were more likely to have fine motor delays (50 percent, 82.7 plus or minus 16.5) compared with girls (28.2 percent, 87.0 plus or minus 15.8). There were no gender differences in receptive language or behavioural difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Boys born with congenital heart disease requiring early surgical repair appear to be at enhanced risk for neuromotor impairments and activity limitations. Findings support gender differences in the pathogenesis of early brain injury following hypoxic-ischaemic insults. This has implications for neuroprotective strategies to prevent brain injury.
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".