Electroencephalographic studies in growth-restricted and small-for-gestational-age neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foetal growth restriction (FGR) and being born small for gestational age (SGA) are associated with neurodevelopmental delay. Early diagnosis of neurological damage is difficult in FGR and SGA neonates. Electroencephalography (EEG) has the potential as a tool for the assessment of brain development in FGR/SGA neonates. In this review, we analyse the evidence base on the use of EEG for the assessment of neonates with FGR or SGA. We found consistent findings that FGR/SGA is associated with measurable changes in the EEG that present immediately after birth and persist into childhood. Early manifestations of FGR/SGA in the EEG include changes in spectral power, symmetry/synchrony, sleep-wake cycling, and the continuity of EEG amplitude. Later manifestations of FGR/SGA into infancy and early childhood include changes in spectral power, sleep architecture, and EEG amplitude. FGR/SGA infants had poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes than appropriate for gestational age controls. The EEG has the potential to identify FGR/SGA infants and assess the functional correlates of neurological damage. IMPACT: FGR/SGA neonates have significantly different EEG activity compared to AGA neonates. EEG differences persist into childhood and are associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. EEG has the potential for early identification of brain impairment in FGR/SGA neonates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".