The Trade‐Off of Delivery Timing Between Reduced Perinatal Complications Versus Adverse Long‐Term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decades, there has been an increase in studies on the impact of the timing of delivery at term on the long-term outcome of babies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have mainly focused on short-term outcomes ranging from perinatal mortality to required respiratory support [1] and indicate positive effects on short-term outcomes. In contrast, longer-term observational studies reported that early-term birth may negatively affect long-term developmental outcomes [2]. This issue of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology includes a carefully planned and executed study by Nguyen and colleagues [3], which utilised linked registry data from Sweden and British Columbia, Canada, adding to the picture that delivery at early term (37 or 38 weeks gestation) is associated with a risk of increased rates of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. They report that those born at 40 weeks gestation are at the lowest risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), while rates are up to 10% increased in those born early term. The study has many strengths. It is based on two large population cohorts in different countries with different obstetric practices and careful controls for a range of medical and social confounders, including parental neurodevelopmental disorders. They were also able to consider the mode of delivery. The effects of early-term birth on ADHD appeared marginally higher in those who experienced induction of labour and planned caesarean delivery. However, this must be carefully interpreted due to the less precise effect estimates (wide 95% confidence intervals).
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".