MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151879264 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/26.8.503

The Relationship Between Periventricular Brain Injury and Deficits in Visual Processing Among Extremely-Low-Birthweight (<1000 g) Children

2001· article· en· W2151879264 on OpenAlexafffund
Lorna S. Jakobson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsPsychologyVisual processingDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlLow birth weightAudiologyMedicineNeuroscienceMedical emergencyPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between neonatal, periventricular brain damage and visuomotor performance in extremely-low-birthweight (ELBW) children of normal intelligence whose birthweights were appropriate for gestational age (AGA). METHODS: Seventy-eight ELBW and 23 control children, all six years of age, completed two "motor-free" tests of visual spatial ability and three tests requiring visuomotor control. RESULTS: Full-term control children outperformed ELBW children with periventricular brain damage on all three tests requiring visuomotor guidance. No group differences were found on two "motor-free" tests of visual spatial ability. ELBW children without periventricular brain damage performed in a manner indistinguishable from controls on all tests included in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the presence and severity of periventricular brain injury are important factors to consider in predicting visuomotor development in ELBW children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207