MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414269094 · doi:10.70070/jtxw1843

Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Outcome Measures in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4414269094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nurul Purnamasari, Ririn Azhari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyRandomized controlled trialCerebral palsyGestational ageSystematic reviewMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryAutism spectrum disorderMEDLINEAutism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Advances in neonatal care have significantly increased the survival of preterm infants, shifting the focus to long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Infants born before 37 weeks of gestation are at an elevated risk for a wide spectrum of impairments due to the interruption of critical in-utero brain development. This systematic review synthesizes the current evidence on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants and the measures used for their assessment. Methods: This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials that reported neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants assessed at or after 12 months of age, compared to term-born controls or other preterm subgroups. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A narrative synthesis was conducted, with results grouped by neurodevelopmental domain. Results: The search yielded 4,720 unique records, from which 8 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 72,974 preterm-born children. The evidence confirms a clear gradient of risk, with the prevalence and severity of impairment increasing with decreasing gestational age. Preterm infants demonstrate significantly higher rates of adverse outcomes across all major domains. Key findings include a pooled prevalence of overall neurodevelopmental impairment of 16% and cerebral palsy of 5% in low- and middle-income countries. Cognitive delays were the most frequently reported outcome, with preterm children scoring, on average, 11-13 points lower on IQ scales than their term-born peers. Increased risks were also consistently found for motor impairments, language delays, academic difficulties, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems. A wide array of assessment tools was identified, with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and Wechsler Intelligence Scales being the most common. Discussion: The findings underscore the substantial and persistent burden of neurodevelopmental morbidity following preterm birth. The heterogeneity of assessment tools across studies presents a significant challenge for synthesizing evidence and comparing outcomes. The data suggest a developmental cascade, where early motor and language deficits may contribute to later cognitive and behavioral challenges. The necessity for long-term surveillance is highlighted by "sleeper effects," where some impairments only manifest later in childhood as academic and social demands increase. Conclusion: Preterm birth is a major risk factor for a wide spectrum of long-term neurodevelopmental impairments. Comprehensive, multidisciplinary follow-up programs using validated and context-appropriate assessment tools are essential for early identification and intervention to optimize the developmental potential of this vulnerable population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.350
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Medical Science and Health ResearchSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207