The contribution of visual processing to academic achievement in adolescents born extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children born extremely preterm (EP, <28 weeks) and/or extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1000 g) have more academic deficiencies than their term-born peers, which may be due to problems with visual processing. The aim of this study is to determine (1) if visual processing is related to poor academic outcomes in EP/ELBW adolescents, and (2) how much of the variance in academic achievement in EP/ELBW adolescents is explained by visual processing ability after controlling for perinatal risk factors and other known contributors to academic performance, particularly attention and working memory. A geographically determined cohort of 228 surviving EP/ELBW adolescents (mean age 17 years) was studied. The relationships between measures of visual processing (visual acuity, binocular stereopsis, eye convergence, and visual perception) and academic achievement were explored within the EP/ELBW group. Analyses were repeated controlling for perinatal and social risk, and measures of attention and working memory. It was found that visual acuity, convergence and visual perception are related to scores for academic achievement on univariable regression analyses. After controlling for potential confounds (perinatal and social risk, working memory and attention), visual acuity, convergence and visual perception remained associated with reading and math computation, but only convergence and visual perception are related to spelling. The additional variance explained by visual processing is up to 6.6% for reading, 2.7% for spelling, and 2.2% for math computation. None of the visual processing variables or visual motor integration are associated with handwriting on multivariable analysis. Working memory is generally a stronger predictor of reading, spelling, and math computation than visual processing. It was concluded that visual processing difficulties are significantly related to academic outcomes in EP/ELBW adolescents; therefore, specific attention should be paid to academic remediation strategies incorporating the management of working memory and visual processing in EP/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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".