Neurocognitive Functioning in Early School‐age Children With Intestinal Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about school-age functioning in children with intestinal failure (IF). This study examines neurocognitive outcomes of children with IF at ages 4 to 8 years treated at a single centre, along with relevant medical and demographic variables. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2016, neurocognitive assessments were administered to 28 children receiving treatment in our IF rehabilitation program, and included measures of intelligence, academics, learning/memory, language, visual-motor integration, and fine-motor dexterity. DSM-IV/V criteria were used to diagnose Learning Disability, Intellectual Disability, and/or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. RESULTS: Intellectual functioning ranged from extremely low to superior (Full Scale IQ range 53-123, mean = 89). Forty-six percentage received a cognitive/learning DSM diagnosis. Total number of first-year septic episodes correlated with poorer outcomes on the most cognitive measures. Adjusting for gestational age (61% were born <37 weeks), number of first-year septic episodes negatively predicted working memory, visual-motor integration, and visual memory scores. Additional factors correlating with poorer outcomes on ≥2 cognitive measures included length of first-year admissions, necrotizing enterocolitis diagnosis, and first-year sustained conjugated hyperbilirubinemia. Having ≥2 first-year septic episodes increased the likelihood of poorer outcome. Having a sibling was a significant positive predictor of working memory, processing speed, reading, and verbal learning skills. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provides preliminary evidence that children with IF are at risk of neurocognitive problems at early school age. Managing septic events during the first year is one strategy that may help reduce long-term neurocognitive risks in this population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".