Neonatal outcomes of extremely preterm twins by sex pairing: an international cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Infant boys have worse outcomes than girls. In twins, the 'male disadvantage' has been reported to extend to female co-twins via a 'masculinising' effect. We studied the association between sex pairing and neonatal outcomes in extremely preterm twins. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SETTING: Eleven countries participating in the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes of Neonates. PATIENTS: Liveborn twins admitted at 23-29 weeks' gestation in 2007-2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined in-hospital mortality, grades 3/4 intraventricular haemorrhage or cystic periventricular leukomalacia (IVH/PVL), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment and a composite outcome (mortality or any of the outcomes above). RESULTS: Among 20 924 twins, 38% were from male-male pairs, 32% were from female-female pairs and 30% were sex discordant. We had no information on chorionicity. Girls with a male co-twin had lower odds of mortality, IVH/PVL and the composite outcome than girl-girl pairs (reference group): adjusted OR (aOR) (95% CI) 0.79 (0.68 to 0.92), 0.83 (0.72 to 0.96) and 0.88 (0.79 to 0.98), respectively. Boys with a female co-twin also had lower odds of mortality: aOR 0.86 (0.74 to 0.99). Boys from male-male pairs had highest odds of BPD and composite outcome: aOR 1.38 (1.24 to 1.52) and 1.27 (1.16 to 1.39), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sex-related disparities in outcomes exist in extremely preterm twins, with girls having lower risks than boys and opposite-sex pairs having lower risks than same-sex pairs. Our results may help clinicians in assessing risk in this large segment of extremely preterm infants.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".