Psychological follow-up study of 5-year-old ICSI children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The developmental outcomes of children born after ICSI are still a matter of concern. The purpose of the present study was to investigate psychological outcomes for 5-year-old children born after ICSI and compare these with outcomes for children born after spontaneous conception (SC). METHODS: Three hundred singleton children born after ICSI in Belgium, Sweden and the USA were matched by maternal age, child age and gender. Outcome measures included the Wechsler Preschool and Primary scales of intelligence (WPPSI-R), Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Parenting Stress Index and Child Behaviour Checklist. RESULTS: Regarding cognitive development, no significant differences were found on WPPSI-R verbal and performance scales between ICSI and SC children. However, some differences were noted on subtests of the Performance Scale. ICSI children more often obtained a score below 1 SD of the mean on the subtests: Object Assembly, Block Design and Mazes (all P<0.05). Significant differences by site (i.e. Belgium, Sweden and New York) were found on subtests related to parenting stress, child behaviour problems and motor development (all P<0.05). These findings can probably be explained by variables other than conception mode, such as cultural differences and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although the finding that a higher proportion of ICSI children obtained scores below the cut-off on some of the visual-spatial subscales of the WPPSI-R warrants further investigation, ICSI does not appear to affect the psychological well-being or cognitive development at age 5.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".