B.02 Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Preterm infants are at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, however studies examining preterm twins are limited. The aim of this study was to examine whether preterm monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins have similar morbidities and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Methods: From a cohort of 225 preterm neonates studied with MRI, 24 MZ and 52 DZ twins were included. Outcomes at 1.5-years, 3-years and 4.5-years were assessed with the Bayley-III, Movement Assessment Battery for Children and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Results: Twin pairs had substantial concordance for retinopathy of prematurity but only moderate-fair concordance for bronchopulmonary dysplasia, infection and brain injury. Differences in cognitive and language scores were stable over time, while motor differences increased. Discordant twins had significantly lower gestational age [Mean1(SD)=26.7(1.38); Mean2(SD)=29.1(2.1); P<0.001] and birth weight [Mean1(SD)=892.2(291.2); Mean2(SD)=1208.0(289.4); P=0.001] and a higher incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and retinopathy of prematurity. In discordant twins, cognitive and language score differences decreased over time while motor differences increased. Conclusions: Preterm twin pairs have similar neurodevelopmental outcomes through early childhood despite poor concordance for perinatal illness. Discordant twins were born earlier and had more morbidities. Increasing concordance in cognitive and language outcomes over time may reflect the positive impact of early intervention programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".