Parental perspectives of outcomes following very preterm birth: Seeing the good, not just the bad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe parental perspective on health and developmental outcomes of their preterm child in relation to level of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). METHODS: A parental survey about their children aged 15-36 months corrected age born ˂29 weeks' gestation investigated parental concerns and positive attributes. Parental responses in relation to their child's level of NDI were examined using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square for trend tests. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-nine parental responses were obtained for 163 children, including 44% with NDI. Vast majority of parents reported their children were developing well with good physical health. All parents, irrespective of NDI, reported their children were happy and had a positive personality. Appreciation of social interactions was higher for parents of children without versus with NDI (96% vs. 87%, p = 0.039). Parents of children with NDI were more likely to express concerns than those without NDI. Overall, development was the most common area of concern (45%), followed by the child's future (40%) and physical health (35%). CONCLUSION: Parents of preterm children report many positive points and concerns, some of which are not examined in neonatal follow-up data. These parental perspectives could be used to inform parents of preterm infants, both antenatally and in the neonatal unit.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".