MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129129869 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(15)00163-1

Postnatal growth standards for preterm infants: the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study of the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project

2015· article· en· W2129129869 on OpenAlexaff
José Villar, Francesca Giuliani, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Enrico Bertino, Eric O. Ohuma, Leila Cheikh Ismail, Fernando C. Barros, Douglas G. Altman, César G. Victora, J. Alison Noble, Michael G. Gravett, Manorama Purwar, Ruyan Pang, Ann Lambert, Aris T. Papageorghiou, Roseline Ochieng, Yasmin A. Jaffer, Stephen Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersUniversity of OxfordUniversidade Federal de PelotasUniversity of WashingtonBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Charts of size at birth are used to assess the postnatal growth of preterm babies on the assumption that extrauterine growth should mimic that in the uterus. METHODS: The INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project assessed fetal, newborn, and postnatal growth in eight geographically defined populations, in which maternal health care and nutritional needs were met. From these populations, the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study selected low-risk women starting antenatal care before 14 weeks' gestation and monitored fetal growth by ultrasonography. All preterm births from this cohort were eligible for the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study, which included standardised anthropometric measurements, feeding practices based on breastfeeding, and data on morbidity, treatments, and development. To construct the preterm postnatal growth standards, we selected all live singletons born between 26 and before 37 weeks' gestation without congenital malformations, fetal growth restriction, or severe postnatal morbidity. We did analyses with second-degree fractional polynomial regression models in a multilevel framework accounting for repeated measures. Fetal and neonatal data were pooled from study sites and stratified by postmenstrual age. For neonates, boys and girls were assessed separately. FINDINGS: From 4607 women enrolled in the study, there were 224 preterm singleton births, of which 201 (90%) were enrolled in the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study. Variance component analysis showed that only 0·2% and 4·0% of the total variability in postnatal length and head circumference, respectively, could be attributed to between-site differences, justifying pooling the data from all study sites. Preterm growth patterns differed from those for babies in the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Newborn Size Standards. They overlapped with the WHO Child Growth Standards for term babies by 64 weeks' postmenstrual age. INTERPRETATION: Our data have yielded standards for postnatal growth in preterm infants. These standards should be used for the assessment of preterm infants until 64 weeks' postmenstrual age, after which the WHO Child Growth Standards are appropriate. Size-at-birth charts should not be used to measure postnatal growth of preterm infants. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations352
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207