Psychological follow-up study of 5-year-old ICSI children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 it