Health perception by young adults born very preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study assessed the self-reported health perception and use of health care by adults born very preterm before 30 weeks of gestation. METHODS: The participants were part of a cross-sectional observational study that assessed the global health of young adults aged 18-29 years born very preterm in Quebec, Canada. Health perception was explored from 2011 to 2016 using the second Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36v2), and objective health measures were obtained. Further in-depth open-ended questions were asked in 2018. RESULTS: The 101 preterm subjects had similar perceptions of their health to 105 term-born controls, according to the SF-36v2, despite significantly more adverse health conditions. Their healthcare use was similar. However, the later in-depth questionnaire showed that 23% of 45 preterm subjects and 3% of 34 term-born subjects perceived their health as poorer than the general population. Major factors that could improve their respective health were lifestyle habits (74% vs. 81%) and eliminating specific adverse symptoms (52% vs. 27%). Only 10% of preterm individuals had been asked about their perinatal history by physicians. CONCLUSION: Adults born very preterm said their health was poorer than the general population and identified specific factors that should be addressed during routine health monitoring.
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".