A meta‐analysis of neurodevelopmental outcomes at 4–10 years in children born at 22–25 weeks gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To update our meta‐analysis on neurodevelopmental disability rates in children born at 22–25 weeks gestation. The main outcome measure was rates of neurodevelopmental disability in survivors at age 4–10 years. Methods We used a peer‐reviewed electronic and grey search to identify articles. Two authors independently reviewed cohorts published after May 2012 with: born ≥1995 in a developed nation; assessed at 4–10 years; prospective; >65% follow‐up; definitions for neurodevelopmental disability as per the EPIC ure cohort; results reported by gestation. We contacted authors for clarification. Random effects meta‐analysis was used to estimate pooled proportions of neurodevelopmental disability. Within each study, the absolute change in proportions with each week was estimated and then pooled. Results We reviewed 3980 records; 21 articles were assessed and six were included. With the previous 9 cohorts, the meta‐analysis now contains 15. Rates of moderate‐to‐severe neurodevelopmental disability were as follows: 42% (95% CI 23,64%; I 2 0%) at 22; 41% (95% CI 31,52%; I 2 20%) at 23; 32% (95% CI 25,39%; I 2 45%) at 24; 23% (95% CI 18,29%; I 2 60%) at 25 weeks. The analysis shows a significant decrease in risk of moderate‐to‐severe neurodevelopmental disability between each week (8.1% (95% CI −11.8, −4.5%); I 2 0%; p < 0.001). Conclusion Physicians can use this high‐quality data to support parents during decision‐making.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".