Neonatal Stress, Health, and Development in Preterms: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: An overview of the full range of neonatal stressors and the associated clinical, laboratory, and imaging outcomes regarding infants' health and development may contribute to the improvement of neonatal care. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review existing literature on the associations between all kinds of neonatal stressors and the health and development of preterm infants. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if they included a measure of neonatal stress during the NICU stay, reported clinical, laboratory, and/or imaging outcomes regarding health and/or development on discharge from the NICU or thereafter, included preterm infants, and were written in English or Dutch. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened the sources and extracted data on health and development. Study quality was assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. RESULTS: We identified 20 articles that reported on neonatal stress associated negatively with clinical outcomes, including cognitive, motor, and emotional development, and laboratory and imaging outcomes, including epigenetic alterations, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning, and structural brain development. We found no evidence regarding associations with growth, cardiovascular health, parent-infant interaction, the neonatal immune system, and the neonatal microbiome. LIMITATIONS: The studies were all observational and used different definitions of neonatal stress. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal stress has a profound impact on the health and development of preterm infants, and physicians involved in their treatment and follow-up should be aware of this fact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".