Indices of Body and Brain Size at Birth and at the Age of 2 Years: Relations to Cognitive Outcome at the Age of 16 Years in Low Birth Weight Infants

Abstract

Being small for gestational age at birth, but not low weight for age at 2 years, and microcephaly at 2 years, but not at birth, were independently related to FSIQ of nondisabled low birth weight adolescents, both with and without control for pre-, peri-, and postnatal risk factors.

Human Infancy...and the Rest of the Lifespan

“…Publications appear periodically as successive waves of data collection are completed (Corapci, Radan, & Lozoff 2006, Gahagan, Yu, Kaciroti, Casillo, & Lozoff 2009, Geva et al 2009, Hane, Henderson, Reeb-Sutherland, & Fox 2010, Lorenz et al 2009, McAnulty et al 2010, Paradise et al 2007, van Baar, Ultee, Gunning, Soepatmi, & de Leeuw 2006). The deduction is that any mature differences between the groups are ascribable to continuing infancy (or prenatal) characteristics or experiences (rather than any intervening factor or experience).…”

“…Low birth weight (LBW; < 2kg) is predictive of motor problems at 16 years (Whitaker et al 2006); height and head circumference at 1 year predict IQ and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 9 and 10 years (Fattal-Valevenski et al 2009); and being small for gestational age has an independent effect on 16-year full-scale IQ, controlling for other pre- and postnatal risk factors (Lorenz et al 2009). Small for gestational age newborns have higher HR and lower HRV than newborns adequate for gestational age; babies born with low birth weight have lower HRV in childhood and adulthood as compared to babies born with normal weight; and those born preterm have higher HR at 18 to 24 years, as compared to normal controls (Aziz et al 2012, Kerkhof et al 2012, Phillips & Barker 1997, Spassov et al.…”

Home Environment, Brain Injury, & School Performance in LBW Survivors

“…Wachs and Gruen (1982) argued that environments should not be thought of in global terms such as good versus bad environments, but that researchers should pay more attention to the aspects within the environment that infl uence developmental outcomes (Perlman, 2001). The biologic vulnerability of LBW infants coupled with the environmental disadvantage is evidenced by lower developmental scores in analyses when controlling for health status (Brooks-Gunn, Gross, Kraemer, Spiker, & Shapiro, 1992;Farrah et al, 2008;Ford et al, 2007;Lorenz et al, 2009;Oliveira, Magalhães, & Salmela, 2011;Turner & Avison, 2003; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families, 2011). is a better predictor of cognitive outcome than any single risk factor (Pungello et al, 2010).…”

Brain development and scholastic achievement in the Education Quality Measurement System tests in Chilean school-aged children

“…Small for gestational age at birth and microcephaly at 2 y were independently related to 16-y intelligence quotient (11). Findings by other authors suggest that abnormal brain development after perinatal injury or postnatal nutritional deficits are responsible for cognitive deficits in preterm children (12).…”