ArticleEarly human development2026
Evaluating the effects of maternal diabetes on early infant neurodevelopment with a novel combination of four neurodevelopmental tools.
Article in Early human development, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are associations between maternal diabetes and neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and intellectual disabilities. Using this knowledge, our objective is to characterize the effects of type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on the neurodevelopment of infants. We performed a prospective study on 54 infants of mothers with T1DM (n = 10), T2DM (n = 24), and non-diabetic controls (n = 20). To evaluate their neurodevelopment in multiple developmental domains, we used four assessments on 1-2-month-old infants: The Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination (HNNE), The Dubowitz exam, The Capute Scales, and The General Movement Assessment (GMA). Differences in neurodevelopmental outcomes did not reach statistical significance in any of the four assessments, individually or combined. However, we note the following trends: 20 infants had suboptimal neuromotor development (HNNE score < 30.5). T1DM group infants had lower mean language scores (83.7 vs 105.85) when compared to the control group. Using GMA, T2DM group infants had more abnormal writhing movements when compared to the other groups. Our overall findings suggest that the T1DM group had lower language scores and the T2DM group had lower visual-motor (cognitive) scores which may indicate developmental delays. Further research is needed to confirm these findings. We suggest that these infant's parents consider developmental therapy, to promote early identification and treatment of potential developmental delays. To our knowledge this study would be the first to use the combination of these assessments to evaluate 1-month-olds in this patient population. Given the small sample size, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.