{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02768166089965398, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02906574394463668, 'mean_word_length': 5.232758620689655, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of two fetal growth curves in screening for high‐risk neonates

The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD‐10) defines the 10th percentiles on the fetal growth curve as the cutoff point for light‐ and small‐for‐gestational‐age infants, instead of the mean body weight −1.5 standard deviation (SD) on the fetal growth curve, which has been used in Japan since 1983. Data on a 5260 sample of term neonates who were born during the 30‐month period between January 1993 and June 1995 were obtained. The clinical usefulness of the 10th percentiles and mean bodyweight −1.5 SD cutoff on the fetal growth curve as screening criteria for high‐risk neonates of light‐ and small‐for‐gestational‐age infants was evaluated. There was a statistically significant higher morbidity rate among the neonates whose birthweight was below mean bodyweight −1.5 SD than for those whose birthweight was below the 10th percentile cut off. But there was no significant difference between the morbidity rate of neonates whose birthweight was between mean bodyweight −1.5 SD and the 10th percentile cutoff and the morbidity rate of neonates whose birthweight was above the 10th percentile cutoff. Therefore, mean bodyweight −1.5 SD on the fetal growth curve is a more effective means of screening for high‐risk light‐ and small‐for‐gestational‐age infants than the 10th percentile cutoff on the fetal growth curve.