Educational Outcomes in School-Aged Children With a History of Simple and Complex Gastroschisis are Poor Compared to Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on long-term cognitive outcomes of children with gastroschisis is limited and inconsistent. This study aimed to compare the educational outcomes of children with gastroschisis to age-matched controls using a population-based repository of educational data. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all children born with gastroschisis between 1991 and 2022. We compared the educational outcomes of children with simple and complex gastroschisis to date-of-birth matched controls using the: Early Development Instrument (EDI) and Grades 3, 7, and 8 assessments. We used odds ratio (OR) to compare the likelihood of children with gastroschisis failing an assessment compared to controls. We did subgroup analyses for simple and complex gastroschisis cases. RESULTS: A total of 208 gastroschisis cases and 2075 controls were included. There were 136 children with simple gastroschisis and 72 children with complex gastroschisis. Children with gastroschisis were more likely to fail a middle school assessment than controls (OR = 2.93, 95%CI = 1.73, 5.09). Even children with simple gastroschisis were more likely to fail a middle school assessment (OR = 2.66, 95%CI = 1.42, 5.13). Moreover, children with severe gastroschisis were at even greater odds of failing a middle school assessment than controls (OR = 4.57, 95%CI = 1.71, 13.60). CONCLUSION: The academic performance of children born with gastroschisis, both simple and complex, is inferior to age-matched controls in middle school. Caregivers should be aware of the ongoing challenges that children born with gastroschisis face and seek early support. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".