Location and Size of Preterm Cerebellar Hemorrhage and Childhood Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between cerebellar hemorrhage (CBH) size and location and preschool-age neurodevelopment in very preterm neonates. METHODS: Preterm magnetic resonance images of 221 very preterm neonates (median gestational age = 27.9 weeks) were manually segmented for CBH quantification and location. Neurodevelopmental assessments at chronological age 4.5 years included motor (Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition [MABC-2]), visuomotor integration (Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, 6th Edition), cognitive (Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale of Intelligence, 3rd Edition), and behavioral (Child Behavior Checklist) outcomes. Multivariable linear regression models examined the association between CBH size and 4.5-year outcomes accounting for sex, gestational age, and supratentorial injury. Probabilistic maps assessed CBH location and likelihood of a lesion to predict adverse outcome. RESULTS: Thirty-six neonates had CBH: 14 (6%) with only punctate CBH and 22 (10%) with ≥1 larger CBH. CBH occurred mostly in the inferior aspect of the posterior lobes. CBH total volume was independently associated with MABC-2 motor scores at 4.5 years (β = -0.095, 95% confidence interval = -0.184 to -0.005), with a standardized β coefficient (-0.16) that was similar to that of white matter injury volume (standardized β = -0.22). CBH size was similarly associated with visuomotor integration and externalizing behavior but not cognition. Voxelwise odds ratio and lesion-symptom maps demonstrated that CBH extending more deeply into the cerebellum predicted adverse motor, visuomotor, and behavioral outcomes. INTERPRETATION: CBH size and location on preterm magnetic resonance imaging were associated with reduced preschool motor and visuomotor function and more externalizing behavior independent of supratentorial brain injury in a dose-dependent fashion. The volumetric quantification and localization of CBH, even when punctate, may allow opportunity to improve motor and behavioral outcomes by providing targeted intervention. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:1095-1108.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".