Motor and cognitive outcomes of low birth weight neonates born in a limited resource country: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To examine the outcomes of motor and cognitive development among neonates born with low birth weight (LBW) or very low birth weight (VLBW). Data sources Systematic review carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using the search strategy using combinations of the following keywords and terms: preterm birth OR prematurity OR premature Infants OR premature children AND low birth weight children OR very low birth weight children AND neurodevelopment OR cognitive development OR Motor development OR follow up AND humans. Articles searched were published from inception until July, 2019, and involved children born and evaluated in Brazil. The bias risk analysis was adapted from the STROBE scale, used to evaluate the methodology of the included studies. Data synthesis The search identified 2,214 publications. After screening for titles and abstracts and removing duplicate entries, full texts of 38 articles were reviewed. After reading full texts, 24 articles met the inclusion criteria (articles in Portuguese and English), dated from 1998 to 2017). Endnote Version X9 software was used for data extraction. Two reviewers performed the literature search and study selection independently. Disagreements were solved by consensus or by a third reviewer. Results it was evidenced an inferior motor development of children with LBW when compared to the control population, the standardized mean difference of [-1.15 (95% CI - 1.56, -0.73), I 2 80%], children with LBW have lower cognitive development according the standardized mean difference of [-0,71 (95% CI -0.99, -0.44) I 2 67%]. Conclusion Our review reinforces that impaired motor and cognitive outcome is a significant long-term outcome associated with LBW. The risk of impairment in those domains increases with decreasing gestational age.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".