Head Circumference and Cognitive Outcome in IUGR:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), variation of head circumference (HC) and impaired cognitive function have been reported. Objective To analyze HC and cognitive scores of IUGR vs. normal growth fetus (NGF). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on the published articles in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and ProQuest (2003/1/1–2023/12/31) using PRISMA guidelines and RevMan 5.4. The quality assessment of each article was conducted using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The study protocol was registered with the CRD42024547189 number in PROSPERO. Results The final articles included are 4 (155 IUGR, 375 NGF). Pooled results from the random-effects model showed that there was a significant difference in head circumference in IUGR (n = 155) vs. NGF (n = 375) of term + preterm [SMD= -0.42, 95% CI= -0.62 to -0.21, P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%, P = 0.79]; and IUGR (n = 128) vs. NGF (n = 326) of preterm newborns only [SMD= - 0.44, 95% CI= -0.67 to -0.21, P<0.0001; I2 = 0%, P = 0.67]. The Bayley-III cognitive scales between IUGR (n = 94) vs. NGF (n = 292) [SMD = - 0.30, 95% CI = - 0.66 to 0.07, P = 0.11; I2 = 28%, P = 0.24]. Conclusion Although there was a significant difference in the head circumference between IUGR and NGF, there were no considerable differences in cognitive achievement. These might be due to a successful effort during the catch-up period, when malnutrition and other factors are addressed
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".