Renal volume of five-year-old preterm children are not different than full-term controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In previous studies, smaller renal volumes were reported in prematurely born infants, however, these renal volumes were not corrected for body surface area, the main determinant of renal size. Given the rapid growth of the renal cortex after premature birth, the authors hypothesized that corrected volumes would not differ from healthy controls. METHODS: Ambispective cohort study with prospective follow-up of prematurely born babies in a large specialized center and retrospectively recruited healthy control group. Children were assessed for renal length and renal volumes at age 5 by three independent ultrasonographers. Detailed anthropometry, blood pressure and renal function were also obtained. Age independent z-scores were calculated for all parameters and compared using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Eighty-nine premature study participants (median 32 weeks gestational age) and 33 healthy controls (median 38 weeks gestational age) were studied. Study participants did not differ in age, sex, Afro-Colombian descent, height, blood pressure, serum creatinine, or new Schwartz eGFR. Premature study participants had a significantly lower weight (17.65 ± 2.93 kg) than controls (19.05 ± 2.81 kg, p = 0.0072) and lower body surface area. The right renal volumes were significantly smaller (39.4 vs 43.4 mL), but after correction for body surface area, the renal volume and renal length z-scores were identical for both kidneys (mean right kidney -0.707 vs -0.507; mean left kidney -0.498 vs -0.524, respectively). CONCLUSION: Renal volumes need to be corrected to body surface area. After correction for body surface area, 5-year-old healthy and prematurely born children have comparable renal volumes.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".