Intellectual Functioning of Children With Isolated PRS, PRS-Plus, and Syndromic PRS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Describe the intelligence quotient (IQ) of children with Pierre Robin sequence (PRS). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Neurodevelopmental follow-up clinic within a hospital. Patients Children with PRS (n = 45) who had been in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) were classified by a geneticist into 3 subgroups of isolated PRS (n = 20), PRS-plus additional medical features (n = 8), and syndromic PRS (n = 17) based on medical record review and genetic testing. Main Outcome Measure Children with PRS completed IQ testing at 5 or 8 years of age with the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third Edition (WPPSI-III) or Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) or Fifth Edition (WISC-V). Results IQ scores were more than 1 to 2 standard deviations below the mean for 36% of the overall sample, which was significantly greater compared to test norms (binomial test P = .001). There was a significant association between PRS subtype and IQ (Fisher’s exact P = .026). While only 20% of children with isolated PRS were within 1 standard deviation below average and 35% of children with syndromic PRS were below 1 to 2 standard deviations, 75% of PRS-plus children scored lower than 1 to 2 standard deviations below the mean. Conclusion PRS subgroups can help identify children at risk for cognitive delay. The majority of children with PRS-plus had low intellectual functioning, in contrast to the third of children with syndromic PRS who had low IQ and the majority of children with isolated PRS who had average or higher IQ.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".