Early detection of developmental delay in infants born very preterm or with very low birthweight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to identify early clinical biomarkers from birth to 16 weeks corrected age to predict typical outcome and developmental delay in infants born very preterm or with very low birthweight. METHOD: A prospective cohort of infants on the Sunshine Coast, Australia, was assessed using the Premie-Neuro Examination, the General Movement Assessment (GMA), the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, and the Infant Sensory Profile 2. At 24 months corrected age, delay was identified using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III) and Neurosensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA). RESULTS: One hundred and four infants were recruited; 79 completed outcome assessments (43 females, 36 males; mean gestational age 30 weeks [SD 1 week 6 days], mean birthweight 1346 g [SD 323]). The incidence of developmental delay (motor or cognitive) was 6.3%. Suboptimal quality of fidgety general movements (temporal organization) at 16 weeks corrected age demonstrated the best predictive accuracy (Bayley-III motor: sensitivity 100% [95% confidence interval {CI} 3-100], specificity 75% [95% CI 63-84], area under the curve [AUC] 0.87); Bayley-III cognitive: sensitivity 100% [95% CI 3-100], specificity 75% [95% CI 64-84], AUC 0.88); NSMDA motor: sensitivity 100% [95% CI 40-100], specificity 81% [95% CI 70-90], AUC 0.91 [95% CI 0.86-0.95]). GMA trajectories that combined abnormal writhing general movements at 4 to 5 weeks corrected age with suboptimal quality of fidgety movement at 16 weeks corrected age were strongly predictive of developmental delay, superior to all other clinical tools, and perinatal and demographic variables investigated (p = 0.01, Akaike information criterion method 18.79 [score corrected for small sample size], accounting for 93% of the cumulative weight). INTERPRETATION: Only the GMA had sufficient predictive validity to act as a biomarker for both conditions: typical outcome and developmental delay (motor or cognitive). GMA trajectories that assessed both writhing general movements at 4 to 5 weeks corrected age and quality of fidgety movement at 16 weeks corrected age predicted adverse neurodevelopmental outcome, accurately differentiating between infants with typical outcomes and those at increased risk for motor or cognitive delay.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".