A Systematic Review of Child Health and Developmental Outcomes Associated with Low Birthweight and/or Small for Gestational Age in Indigenous Children from Australia, Canada and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While much is known about the health implications of low birthweight for infants and adults, there is limited information about the health implications in childhood, particularly for Indigenous children. The aim of this systematic review was to assess associations between low birthweight (LBW) and/or small for gestational age (SGA) and the developmental, physical or mental health outcomes for Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Indigenous children (5-12 years), including the potential mediating role of cultural connections. The review was guided by an Aboriginal Advisory Group established to guide the Aboriginal Families Study. Four databases were investigated with pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The search identified 417 articles after independent screening by two authors. Eight studies assessing six child outcomes were included. The review identified limited evidence, although the review suggested possible links between LBW and/or SGA and childhood asthma, lower body mass index (BMI) and poorer academic performance. Links between LBW, SGA and disability, global health and developmental vulnerability were inconclusive. One study identified cultural-based resilience as protective against perinatal adversity. In summary, research on the relationship between adverse birth outcomes and Indigenous children's health and development is limited. Further investigation and collaboration with Indigenous communities is required to drive optimised health and social services responses and equitable system reform.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".