MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neurodevelopmental Outcomes at 4 to 8 Years of Children Born at 22 to 25 Weeks’ Gestational Age

2013· review· en· W2112033622 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory P. Moore, Brigitte Lemyre, Nick Barrowman, Thierry Daboval

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestationMEDLINEGestational agePediatricsCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalCohort studyMeta-analysisPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Many centers delivering infants at 22 to 25 weeks' gestation have limited data regarding their outcomes. A meta-analysis of the 4- to 8-year neurodevelopmental outcomes and exploration of the limitations of meta-analysis would aid physicians and parents to plan care for these infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of moderate to severe and severe neurodevelopmental impairment by gestational age in extremely preterm survivors followed up between ages 4 and 8 years, as well as to determine whether there is a significant difference in impairment rates between the successive weeks of gestation of survivors. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A peer-reviewed search strategy obtained English-language publications from MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Personal files and reference lists from identified articles were searched. Contemporary cohorts were obtained by restriction to those published after 2004. Inclusion criteria were prospective cohort studies, follow-up rate of 65% or more, use of standardized testing or classification for impairment, reporting by gestation, and meeting prespecified definitions of impairment. We excluded randomized clinical trials, highly selective cohorts, consensus statements, and reviews. Of 1771 identified records, 89 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility. Using the full text of each publication, 2 authors independently followed a 2-step procedure. First, they determined that 9 studies met inclusion criteria. Next, they extracted data using a structured data collection form. Investigators were contacted for data clarification. RESULTS: All extremely preterm infant survivors have a substantial likelihood of developing moderate to severe impairment. Wide confidence intervals at the lower gestations (eg, at 22 weeks, 43% [95% CI, 21%-69%]; heterogeneity I2, 0%) and high heterogeneity at the higher gestations (eg, at 25 weeks, 24% [95% CI, 17%-32%]; I2, 66%) limit the results. There was a statistically significant absolute decrease in moderate to severe impairment between each week of gestation (6.5% [95% CI, 2%-11%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Knowledge of these data, including the limitations, should facilitate discussion during the shared decision-making process about care plans for these infants, particularly in centers without their own data. More prospective, high-quality, complete cohorts are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations129
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207