Sensory Processing Patterns in Children Born Very Preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We describe the prevalence and type of sensory processing differences in children born very preterm and determine associations with neonatal risk factors. METHOD: We assessed sensory processing patterns using the Short Sensory Profile in a retrospective cohort of 160 children age 4 yr born very preterm (≤ 32 wk gestational age). Data analyses included descriptive statistics to describe the prevalence of sensory processing patterns and logistic regression to examine associations with neonatal risk factors. RESULTS: Almost half of our cohort (46%) exhibited atypical sensory processing patterns. Lower Apgar scores (p = .03) and longer length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU; p = .02) independently predicted atypical sensory processing patterns. CONCLUSION: Children born very preterm are at increased risk for sensory processing differences, which are associated with perinatal risk factors and length of stay in the NICU. Routine evaluation for sensory processing differences of children born preterm is recommended.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".