Additional file 3 of Sex differences in the effects of prematurity and/or low birthweight on neurodevelopmental outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 3: Figure S1. Effect of age as a moderator on the effect of severe prematurity/low birthweight on cognitive function. Squares and circles are estimates for males and females, respectively, and marker size indicates weight. Figure S2. Effect of age as a moderator on the effect of moderate prematurity/low birthweight on cognitive function. Figure S3. Effect of age as a moderator on the effect of severe prematurity/low birthweight on internalizing problems. Figure S4. Effect of age as a moderator on the effect of severe prematurity/low birthweight on externalizing problems. Figure S5. Effect of age as a moderator on the effect of moderate prematurity/low birthweight on externalizing problems. Figure S6. Funnel plot of residuals (observed–fitted values) and standard errors for the effect of severe prematurity/low birthweight on cognitive function. Squares and circles are estimates for males and females, respectively, and marker size indicates weight. Figure S7. Funnel plot for the effect of moderate prematurity/low birthweight on cognitive function. Figure S8. Funnel plot for the effect of severe prematurity/low birthweight on internalizing problems. Figure S9. Funnel plot for the effect of severe prematurity/low birthweight on externalizing problems. Figure S10. Funnel plot for the effect of moderate prematurity/low birthweight on externalizing problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.307 | 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 teacher head, 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".