Factors determining cognitive, motor and language scores in low birth weight infants from North India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children born with low birth weight (LBW) tend to have lower neurodevelopmental scores compared to term normal birth weight children. It is important to determine factors that influence neurodevelopment in these low birth weight children especially in the first 2-3 years of life that represents a period of substantial brain development. METHODS: This secondary data analysis was conducted using data from LBW infants enrolled soon after birth in an individually randomized controlled trial (RCT) and followed up till end of 1st year. Neurodevelopmental assessment was done at 12 months of corrected age by trained psychologists using Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development 3rd edition (Bayley-III). Factors influencing cognitive, motor and language scores were determined using multivariable linear regression model. RESULTS: Linear growth (i.e., length for age z score, LAZ) [cognitive: Standardized ẞ-coefficient = 2.19, 95% CI; 1.29, 3.10; motor: 2.41, 95% CI; 1.59, 3.23; language: 1.37, 95% CI; 0.70, 2.04], stimulation at home [cognitive: 0.21, 95% CI; 0.15, 0.27; motor: 0.12, 95% CI; 0.07, 0.17; language: 0.21, 95% CI; 0.16, 0.25] and number of diarrhoeal episodes [cognitive: -2.87, 95% CI; -4.34, -1.39; motor: -2.62, 95% CI; -3.93, -1.29; language: -2.25, 95% CI; -3.32, -1.17] influenced the composite scores in all three domains i.e., cognitive, language and motor. While increase in LAZ score and stimulation led to increase in composite scores; an increase in number of diarrhoeal episodes was associated with decrease in scores. Weight for height z scores (WHZ) were associated with motor and language but not with cognitive scores. Additionally, a negative association of birth order with cognitive and language scores was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate the possible importance of promoting nutrition and preventing diarrhoea as well as ensuring optimal stimulation and nurturance at home for enhancing child development in LBW 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 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".