A Population-based Study Evaluating the Association between Surgery in Early Life and Child Development at Primary School Entry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether exposure to surgery in early life has long-term adverse effects on child development. The authors aimed to investigate whether surgery in early childhood is associated with adverse effects on child development measured at primary school entry. METHODS: The authors conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, by linking provincial health administrative databases to children's developmental outcomes measured by the Early Development Instrument (EDI). From a cohort of 188,557 children, 28,366 children who underwent surgery before EDI completion (age 5 to 6 yr) were matched to 55,910 unexposed children. The primary outcome was early developmental vulnerability, defined as any domain of the EDI in the lowest tenth percentile of the population. Subgroup analyses were performed based on age at first surgery (less than 2 and greater than or equal to 2 yr) and frequency of surgery. RESULTS: Early developmental vulnerability was increased in the exposed group (7,259/28,366; 25.6%) compared with the unexposed group (13,957/55,910; 25.0%), adjusted odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.08. Children aged greater than or equal to 2 yr at the time of first surgery had increased odds of early developmental vulnerability compared with unexposed children (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.10), but children aged less than 2 yr at the time of first exposure were not at increased risk (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.10). There was no increase in odds of early developmental vulnerability with increasing frequency of exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Children who undergo surgery before primary school age are at increased risk of early developmental vulnerability, but the magnitude of the difference between exposed and unexposed children is small.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".