Immediate Skin-to-Skin Contact at Very Preterm Birth and Neurodevelopment the First Two Years: Secondary Outcomes from a Randomised Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Very preterm infants are at increased risk of impairment. The objective was to explore the effect of immediate parent–infant skin-to-skin contact at very preterm birth on cognition, motor, social, and language development during the two first years. Methods: The Immediate Parent-Infant Skin-To-Skin Study (IPISTOSS) was a clinical trial with inclusions between April 2018 to June 2021, in three Scandinavian neonatal intensive care units. Infants were randomised at gestational age 28 + 0 to 32 + 6 weeks plus days, to immediate and continuous skin-to-skin contact at birth or conventional care, during the first six hours of life. Results: At three months, 42 infants underwent a General Movement Assessment. At four and 12 months, 69 and 62 infants, respectively, were assessed with the Alberta Motor Infant Scale. At 24 months, language and cognition were tested in 62 infants with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, third edition. Parents completed the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers for 57 infants. There were no significant differences in motor development, cognition, or autism spectrum disorders. A significant difference in language scores in favour of immediate skin-to-skin contact, was found, when adjusted for fathers’ education, mothers’ education, and infants’ sex, Beta (95% CI): 32.00 (7.57, 56.43) p = 0.01, 11.51 (8.94, 55.06) p = 0.007, and 32.00 (7.85, 56.15) p = 0.01, respectively. Conclusions: Skin-to-skin contact immediately at birth did not enhance cognition, motor, or social development during the first two years of life but may have been important for language skills. Our findings support the World Health Organisation guidelines recommending iSSC for preterm born infants in all settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".