MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162876130 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdt071

Low birth weight and intelligence in adolescence and early adulthood: a meta-analysis

2013· review· en· W2162876130 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsBridgepoint Active HealthcareToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsIntelligence quotientMeta-analysisBirth weightLow birth weightMedicineDemographyPediatricsPsychologyGerontologyPsychiatryPregnancyCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research has demonstrated an association between low birth weight (LBW; <2500 g) and adverse intelligence quotient (IQ) outcomes in childhood and early adolescence. We systematically evaluated whether this association persists into late adolescence and early adulthood and also assessed the influence of age of IQ assessment on effect size. METHODS: During Stage 1 (meta-analysis of data on adolescents/adults), we searched for relevant articles in PsychINFO, PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, ProQuest and ERIC until February 2011 (no lower limit). Studies which assessed full-scale IQ among LBW individuals (<2500 g), aged 13 years and older, with a normal birth weight (NBW; ≥2500 g) comparison group were eligible. A random-effects meta-analysis provided a pooled estimate of the difference in IQ scores between LBW and NBW individuals. Publication bias was assessed using Rosenthal's classic fail-safe N and Duval and Tweedie's Trim and Fill. During Stage 2, we added data from the Kerr-Wilson et al. meta-analysis (which included data from children; in Meta-analysis of the association between preterm delivery and intelligence. Journal Public Health 2011;33:1-8) to our sample from Stage 1 and conducted a meta-regression to evaluate the effect of age of IQ assessment. RESULTS: Using a total of 15 studies in Stage 1, it was demonstrated that NBW individuals scored an average of 7.63 IQ points higher than LBW individuals, CI = 5.95-9.31. After adjusting for publication bias, NBW samples demonstrated an IQ of 4.98 points higher than LBW samples, CI = 3.20-6.77. Furthermore, age at IQ assessment was a significant moderator of the association between birth weight and IQ, in that the effect size decreased from childhood into young adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairments associated with LBW persist into adolescence and early adulthood; however, the influence of LBW on IQ decreases from childhood to young adulthood. These conclusions must be interpreted with caution due to unmeasured variables and possible influence from publication bias.

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 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)0.004
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.238 · 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