Gestational Age, Birth Weight, and Neurocognitive Development in Adolescents in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between gestational age, birthweight, and birthweight adjusted for gestational age, with domains of neurocognitive development and behavioral problems in adolescents in Tanzania. STUDY DESIGN: newborn anthropometric standards were used to derive birthweight for gestational age z-scores. We assessed the shape of relationships using restricted cubic splines and estimated the associations of gestational age, birthweight, and birthweight for gestational age z-score with adolescent development using multivariable linear regressions. RESULTS: Among adolescents studied (n = 421), higher gestational age (per week), birthweight (per 100 grams), and birthweight for gestational age z-score (per SD) were linearly associated with higher intelligence score (adjusted standardized mean difference, 0.05 SD [95% CI, 0.01-0.09], 0.04 SD [95% CI, 0.02-0.06], and 0.09 SD [95% CI, 0.01-0.17], respectively). Birthweight and birthweight for gestational age z-score, but not gestational age, were also associated with improved executive function. Low birthweight (<2500 g) was associated with lower intelligence and executive function scores. Associations between birthweight and executive function were stronger among adolescents born to women with higher education. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of gestation and birthweight were positively associated with adolescent neurodevelopment in Tanzania. These findings suggest that interventions to improve birth outcomes may also benefit adolescent cognitive function.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".