Longitudinal Assessment of Developmental Outcomes in Infants Undergoing Late Craniosynostosis Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of infants with craniosynostosis for surgical intervention, as opposed to conservative management, remains a challenge within the field of craniofacial surgery. Studies have consistently demonstrated that surgical repair of craniosynostosis is ideally performed between 3 and 12 months of age. As such, there is limited data regarding neurocognitive development in infants who initially present with uncorrected craniosynostosis after 12 months of age. Moreover, the impact of cranial vault surgery on neurocognitive development at all ages remains under investigation. A prospective, nonrandomized study was performed. All children with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis who presented for initial evaluation after 12 months of age were enrolled. The Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III) was utilized to assess pre- and postoperative cognitive development and comparisons were made to normative values. Developmental delay is defined as scoring < 85. Five infants, average age 26 months (13-43 months) at initial presentation, underwent cranial vault remodeling and developmental testing. Fused cranial sutures involved: metopic (n = 4), and right coronal (n = 1). Cognitive testing demonstrated that 4 of 5 infants (80%) were developmentally delayed at presentation (scores: 60, 70, 72, and 80), and 1 infant was within normal limits (score: 100). Postoperative testing was performed between 2 and 12 months postoperatively. Universal improvement was observed in infants who were delayed prior to surgery (80, 80, 75, and 90, respectively). The infant who was not delayed prior to surgery remained within normal limits after surgery. This study demonstrates an association between cranial vault surgery and cognitive improvement in infants presenting late with developmental delay.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".