Motor Coordination Difficulties in Extremely Low Birth Weight Survivors Across Four Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare levels of motor coordination difficulties in a cohort of extremely low birth weight (ELBW; <1000 g) survivors and normal birth weight (NBW) controls from childhood until age 36. The stability of motor coordination in ELBW and NBW adults from their 20s to their 30s was also assessed. METHODS: This study uses a prospectively followed population-based birth cohort of ELBW survivors born between 1977 and 1982 in Ontario, Canada, to compare motor coordination at age 8, age 22 to 26, and age 29 to 36 in ELBW survivors relative to a matched group of NBW controls across a number of different measures. RESULTS: After adjusting for neurosensory impairment, ELBW survivors had significantly higher levels of motor coordination difficulties than their NBW counterparts at age 8, 22 to 26, and 29 to 36. Self-reported motor coordination remained relatively stable from age 22 to 26 to age 29 to 36 in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: ELBW survivors display higher levels of motor coordination difficulties than NBW controls in childhood through their mid 30s. Motor coordination seems to be stable from age 22 to 36 in both groups, suggesting that the presence of motor problems in ELBW survivors can have important implications for functional outcomes in adulthood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".