I don't have a link to the article, but I've been reading some lately about children born earlier having a lower IQ and a higher chance of developmental delays and learning disabilities. I find this interesting, because DD14 was born right around the premature mark (3 weeks early), and is gifted. (I have another son who was born later and is also gifted). I guess the theory is that the 3 weeks would be time that the baby would be still developing mentally, but I guess it depends on the baby. DD14 was born a bit heavier than average, with no lung issues, and given her intelligence, it doesn't look like being born early made any difference for her.
I'll try to find the articles, I'm doing a google search right now.

http://news.health.com/2009/03/31/babies-born-only-2-3-weeks-early-may-face-development-delays/
Here is one article. It claims that even only 2 to 3 weeks early babies have a higher chance of having developmental delays, and once you get down into the 4+ weeks early category, it gets even higher.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2010/06/babies_born_even_a_week_early.html
Here's another one, claiming that even 1-2 weeks early babies have a higher risk for Learning disabilities.
This one mentions that late babies have a higher risk as well.

I've certainly heard that there is a statistical tendency for early babies to have lower IQs and more developmental delays, but I think this is not believed to be because the brain would have gone on developing. It still develops very rapidly after the baby is born, and although it's not out of the question that there could be some important benefit to that being in utero, I haven't heard it. Rather, I think it's that babies who arrive early are more likely (just statistically, again) to have had some problem affecting their development, whether genetic or environmental, that both increases the chance of being born early and decreases expected IQ and development speed.

It's a very small effect, though, barring serious prematurity and recognised brain damage - not useful in explaining individuals.

My DS was born 4 weeks early with an APGAR score of 0. I shudder to think what he'd be like if he hadn't been deprived of oxygen at birth :-)

Really, it's not funny because he could have been seriously harmed by complications and he did have a rough start, including 10 days in the hospital. I think back to how many doctors told me we'd be lucky if he ever talked, that he most certainly would be on the spectrum (due to head size) and that he'd likely never attend regular school.

Both of my sons were born 3 weeks early. One is verified PG, and the other shows signs as well. I agree that this is just a statistical tendency. It's like saying that the average baby has an IQ of 100.

I did worry about this with DS2 because I went into premature labor beginning at 26 weeks. Since I had nothing to do but read up on all the potential issues with premature babies, I was watching the IQ-statistics rise while all the other medical concerns declined as we made it week by week towards his due date.

My mom is a teacher. She told me that when children are being moved into an LD program, one of the first questions the school asks the parents is whether the child was born prematurely. There is a correlation, but luckily many make it through without any adverse learning issues.

PS CAMom, I'm so sorry you went through such a scare, but your DS is such a miracle story! I was thinking along the same lines on the humorous side, though. I don't think I could handle my DSs at a higher level than where they're already at!

Okay, thanks for the clarification ColinsMum.
Of course, I forgot to mention what you are saying, gratefulmom, that obviously this didn't have much of an effect on our kids.
I guess there is a higher chance for a lower intelligence/learning disabilities, etc, but that's not to say that everyone will be dragged down.
I think that the real problems begin once you get into the 2month+ range, as that really does come with a higher risk for issues down the road, not to mention the potential for a lot of NICU time.
From what I've read online, I'm surprised there was no trouble with DD14 (other than the C-Section, which honestly didn't really matter much at all), it seems like other people have even had problems with the baby's lungs at 3 weeks early.
It's kind of ironic, though, 3 weeks early, and then the tallest in her class all through elementary school, and even into middle and high school she is still extremely tall, just not the tallest. I don't think there is even any correlation between the two unless you are *really* early, but it is still kind of a funny thought.

My big girl was born 3 weeks early and was term by date but premature by exam. I was told by the Dr not to worry if she was behind a month on developmental milestones. Well, she was never behind and though it's not "official", I'm very certain she is moderately gifted. I don't believe she has any LDs either.

My daughter was born at 32 wks (8 wks early) through a very traumatic placental abruption. She was in the NICU for over a month and was quite anemic for the first year of her life. None of that bodes well for great brain development. I am a neonatal nurse practitioner and I work with premature infants. I was well aware of the statistics but I am very happy to say that, lucky for us, it is not always the case! While DD does have ADHD, she is also PG.

<My DS was born 4 weeks early with an APGAR score of 0. I shudder to think what he'd be like if he hadn't been deprived of oxygen at birth :-)>

DS11 makes a similar joke about his birth, which happened exactly a month before his due date as a result of placental abruption.

I'm not sure how much oxygen deprivation he endured. Though he was awfully gray when he emerged, his APGAR's were 9 and 9; he weighed 6 lbs. 15 oz. (When I heard that, I was glad he was early!) and didn't need any time in the NICU.

I don't remember seeing it, but apparently he held his head up in the hospital; a few years ago he met the criteria for DYS.

So I guess all these bright, early babies are statistical outliers; brought together by the 'net, they seem more significant than that, though.

Ain't that the truth! �Loving the peaceful gathering of a crowd of rare people. �Ain't it beautiful? �

How can you tell what effect it had or didn't have? I think that all you can say is that your kids are doing well (which is plenty). I'm skeptical, just because being born prematurely certainly isn't optimal, and if it has any possible effect at all, which has been demonstrated, I don't see a reason to assume that being somewhat premature has zero effect. You can probably take a bit of an edge off someone with vast potential and still leave vast potential.

Similarly, malnutrition is known to inhibit brain development-- and I see no reason to assume that that effect wouldn't be suffered by everyone, do you?-- yet I'm sure there are quite a few brilliant people who were at least somewhat malnourished at some point in their development. Wouldn't they have been better off under optimal conditions?

I guess what I was saying that, as far as we know, none of our kids did get those learning disabilities that they were statistically higher to get. (unless they did, but no one has mentioned that) Having said that, that part of the articles isn't "intelligence".
As far as whether the intelligence was docked at all for being born early, I guess we will never know.

I have heard this many times...DD was born 5 weeks early, and I had a very traumatic pregnancy and birth.... well DH and I like to joke that it is a good thing she was a preemie or there is no telling where she would be. She is 3 and has been identified as PG. So I think it is one of those statistical things...yes, probably is the case, but as in all things, there are outliers. And DD is an outlier I guess LOL

I'll take my outlier very happily, given the alternative!

And I agree, they are outliers.

My son was born 26 weeks premature and he was less than two pounds. He is now 18 years old and he is gifted. He won gold medal at UK maths challenge and he is doing extremely well even he is the youngest in his class. He is going to go Southampton University and study aeronatical engineering. So I know the statistic but I just would like tell it is also to do with genes as well. Thanks

[My son was born 26 weeks premature and he was less than two pounds. He is now 18 years old and he is gifted. He won gold medal at UK maths challenge and he is doing extremely well even he is the youngest in his class. He is going to go Southampton University and study aeronatical engineering. So I know the statistic but I just would like tell it is also to do with genes as well. Thanks

I went into preterm labor with DS10 at 23 weeks. We held on with lots of bedrest and plenty of drug until 36 weeks when the he was born as a happy, healthy 7.5 pound baby boy. He is now a DYS.

I started having early contraction with DD1 at 15 weeks and went back on bedrest and progesterone shots. She was born at 38 weeks as a happy, healthy baby girl. She continues to amaze us with her cognitive abilities and is definitely giving her big brother a run for his money.

For both kids, I had steroid shots between 26-32 weeks to help develop lung function in case of an early birth. DH and I have always joked about this effect on their development. They have always seemed like their development was on steroids, both mentally and physically.

It seems like we have an unusually high percentage of preterm births here. Perhaps, by playing the devil's advocate, we could argue that weeks spent in a dark uterus are less stimulating than weeks spent in the big, bright world. Please note that this is said with a large pinch of humor. I am certainly not advocating preterm births for everyone as a way of producing PGlets.

Both my kids were 3-4 weeks early by planned cesarean section. Long story, but it had nothing to do with their development and everything to do with concerns of my uterus holding up. They did everything from day one on track or early. Both of them were kind of scarily aware newborns.


I buy into this theory.

There is the question of what it means to be early, on time and late. Most research into due dates shows that are usually very off and that the 40 week timeline can be very innaccurate. NICU rates have been rising due to doctors inducing or planning c-sections at 39 weeks because they think all babies are ready by then. This happened to my nephew. Then you hear of babies born much earlier than that (35 or 36 weeks) and are just fine.

I think early, on time, or late depends on the baby. If the baby is born when they're ready to be born and suffer no problems from that birth, then I would say they were on time.

Sorry -- I'll get off my soapbox now. Did waaaayyy too much research before my son was born.

For purposes of counting - mine were "on time." My son was technically 8 days after is his due date and my daughter was one day after. Not sure where they are on the IQ scale, but they're definitely giving me a run for my money.

I would also hazard to guess that breastfeeding, or at least a nurturing environment, and proper prenatal care have more of an impact on IQ (statistically over a large population) than when the child was born for anything besides severely premature.

I only breastfed my daughter for 8 weeks, but am practicing extended breastfeeding for my son. Prenatal nutrition was about the same for each.

I work with a neonatologist who specializes in the perinatal follow-up of premature infants (at least until the age of three). He has accumulated years of data in our province. The very first question he asks when learning a baby's history is "Are the parents married?" Factoring out all other variables, this is the most consistent one in the cognitive and mental development (as measured via the Bayley's Developmental Assessment) of the prems in our area. Says something about the importance of a stable social environment in these situations. I would love to see his data used in longitudinal studies.

The biggest problem with any research on premature babies is that there are so many variables to consider. An 'uncomplicated' late-preterm infant could suffer long-term outcomes from a short, transient bout of hypoglycemia just after birth while an severely ill 26-weeker could escape seemingly unscathed.

Maybe to some extent, but I think the primary reason for the effect may be that low-IQ parents are more likely to have a child out wedlock -- in a study by Murray and Herrnstein, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve , 32% of the mothers with IQ < 75 were unwed, compared to only 2% of the mothers with IQ > 125 -- and that IQ is about 75% heritable in the U.S. (and in Canada, I'd guess). Therefore children born out of wedlock tend to be less intelligent.

My DD5 was also born four weeks early and has always been significantly ahead. She was also born after a long, difficult labor and was blue and needed oxygen. I have wondered how any of that affected her.

DS 14, my only bio-child, was born on the first day of the 36th week. I had a threatened miscarriage at 6 weeks, and was on bedrest for three weeks, then allowed up, and was back on bedrest and medication for pre-term labor from 5 1/2 months on. He had breathing problems at birth, and spent a few days in the NICU on oxygen and a slant board, came home for a few days, and then spent another week in the hospital with apnea of prematurity. He has verbal IQ scores above the DYS cutoff, an AS diagnosis, and multiple visual and motor issues. Are some of his disabilities related to the prematurity? Possibly, although the direction of the casual arrow is difficult to assess for sure.

Interesting, I'm not sure I'd ever really heard or paid attention to this.

DS was born at just past 37 weeks after preterm labor starting at 30 weeks - including 18 days in the hospital (32.5-35 weeks). He had a traumatic birth and had head trauma as well. He is definitely gifted but may have some other stuff going on - we've always said he had the preemie problems but wasn't the preemie.

DD was born at 29 weeks after preterm labor starting at 23 weeks - including 18 days in the hospital (26.5-29 weeks). She had an easy delivery and then spent 45 days in the NICU having many many feeding and intestinal issues. While physically delayed early on she has since fully caught up and while we haven't had her tested I would say she is most likely gifted - just differently then her brother. She is also on the taller/larger side compared to many of the other kids her age (or even a bit older).

It probably really depends on alot of factors we can't gauge accurately. My older son was born at 42 weeks (grrr...) after a difficult birth. He ended up having this weird birth defect called craniosynostosis, where the soft spot is closed at birth. It can be associated with a whole host of long-term learning disabilities. He had major reconstructive skull surgery at 3 months of age.
Because of that, I worried ALOT about him and talked constantly to him as a baby and toddler, etc. At 6, he aced the WISC, esp. the verbal section. He's deaf in one ear (?from the birth defect? We don't really know) and wears a hearing aid and FM system. He's way above grade level across the board, thank god.
My little one popped right out. No birth defects, etc. Yet his verbal IQ (and skills) are not as good as his brother! In retrospect, I think we focused soooo much on the big one that we a bit neglected the "easy" little one!
So who knows!
We are trying to do more verbal things with my little one.