Neurodevelopment and Growth of a Cohort of Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants Compared to Full-Term Infants in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the neurodevelopment and growth of very low birth weight (BW) preterm infants, at 8 and 18 months corrected age (CA), compared with full term in Brazil. Methods Prospective cohort study including 83 preterm infants with BW ≤ 1,500 g and gestational age ≤ 32 weeks, and 52 full-term control infants. Preterm infants free from significant sensory and motor disability, and from congenital anomalies were included. Alberta infant motor scale (AIMS) and Brunet–Lèzini scale (BLS) were used to evaluate the neurodevelopment at 8 and 18 months. Anthropometric measurements were collected to evaluate the growth in both age groups. Results At 8 months CA, preterm infants scored significantly lower in total AIMS score (p = 0.001). At 18 months, they scored significantly lower on the stand subscale from AIMS (p = 0.040) and exhibited poor psychomotor development in the BLS (p = 0.006). The nutritional status showed significant differences between the groups, in both age groups (p < 0.001). There were positive correlations between nutritional status and AIMS (r = 0.420; p < 0.001) and BLS (r = 0.456; p < 0.001) at 8 months, and between head circumference and BLS (r = 0.235; p < 0.05) at 8 months and AIMS (r = 0.258; p < 0.05) at 18 months. Conclusion Very low BW preterm infants at 8 and 18 months CA showed significant differences in the neurodevelopment and growth pattern when compared with their full-term peers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".