MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159518337 · doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0932

Psychosocial and Academic Characteristics of Extremely Low Birth Weight (≤800 g) Adolescents Who Are Free of Major Impairment Compared With Term-Born Control Subjects

2004· article· en· W2159518337 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruth E. Grunau, Michael F. Whitfield, Taryn B. Fay‐McClymont

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleBirth weightPsychosocialPediatricsLow birth weightCognitionDevelopmental psychologyDemographyPregnancyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare academic and cognitive ability, attention, attitudes, and behavior of extremely low birth weight (ELBW) adolescents who are free of major impairments at 17 years of age with term-born control subjects. METHODS: Between January 31, 1981, and February 9, 1986, 250 infants of < or =800 g were admitted for intensive care in British Columbia, 98 (39%) of whom survived to late adolescence. Teens with major sensorimotor handicaps and/or IQ <70 were excluded (n = 19). Of the 79 eligible ELBW teens, 53 (67%) were assessed at 17.3 (16.3-19.7) years (birth weight: 720 [520-800 g]; gestation: 26 [23-29] weeks). The test battery screened the following areas: cognitive (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Adults Third Edition, 3 subtests), academic (Wide Range Achievement Test-3), attention (Connors' Continuous Performance Task), self-report (Harter Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents; Job Search Attitude Inventory), and parent report (Child Behavior Check List). A comparison group of term born control subjects (n = 31) were also assessed (birth weight: 3506 [3068-4196] g; gestation: 40 [39-42] weeks) at age 17.8 (16.5-19.0) years. Multivariate analysis of variance (group x gender) was conducted for each domain (cognitive, academic, self-report, and parent report). RESULTS: The ELBW group showed lower cognitive scores (vocabulary, block design, and digit symbol) and academic skills (reading and arithmetic) compared with control subjects, with no gender differences. There were no differences in attention between the 2 groups using a repetitive computer task. ELBW teens reported lower scholastic, athletic, job competence, and romantic confidence and viewed themselves as more likely to need help from others in finding a job. In the behavioral domain, parents reported their ELBW teens to display more internalizing, more externalizing, and more total problems than the control teens, with ELBW boys showing more problems. ELBW teens showed a higher percentage of clinically significant behavior problems than control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: In a provincial cohort of unimpaired survivors of birth weight < or =800 g, psychosocial and educational vulnerabilities persist into late adolescence and may complicate the transition to adult life compared with their peers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations280
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207