Country‐Specific vs. Common Birthweight‐for‐Gestational Age References to Identify Small for Gestational Age Infants Born at 24–28 weeks: An International Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether birthweight-for-gestational age references used to classify infants as small for gestational age (SGA) should be country specific or based on an international (common) standard. We examined whether different birthweight-for-gestational age references affected the association of SGA with adverse outcomes among very preterm neonates. METHODS: Singleton infants (n = 23 788) of 24(0) -28(6) weeks' gestational age in nine high-resource countries were classified as SGA (<10th centile) using common and country-specific references based on birthweight and estimated fetal weight (EFW). For each reference, the adjusted relative risk (aRR) for the association of SGA with composite outcome of mortality or major morbidity was estimated. RESULTS: The percentage of infants classified as SGA differed slightly for common compared with country specific for birthweight references [9.9% (95% CI 9.5, 10.2) vs. 11.1% (95% CI 10.7, 11.5)] and for EFW references [28.6% (95% CI 28.0, 29.2) vs. 24.6% (95% CI 24.1, 25.2)]. The association of SGA with the composite outcome was similar when using common or country-specific references for the total sample for birthweight [aRRs 1.47 (95% CI 1.43, 1.51) and 1.48 (95% CI 1.44, 1.53) respectively] and for EFW references [aRRs 1.35 (95% CI 1.31, 1.38) and 1.39 (95% CI 1.35, 1.43) respectively]. CONCLUSION: Small for gestational age is associated with higher mortality and morbidity in infants born <29 weeks' gestational age. Although common and country-specific birthweight/EFW references identified slightly different proportions of SGA infants, the risk of the composite outcome was comparable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".