# Neurodevelopment at Two Years in Preterm Infants: Corrected Versus Chronological Age

## TL;DR

Using corrected age, not chronological age, better captures developmental delays in preterm infants at two years, especially for those born very early.

## Contribution

The study shows that corrected age is more accurate than chronological age for assessing development in preterm children up to 24 months.

## Key findings

- Preterm infants show selective developmental delays when assessed by corrected age.
- Chronological age overestimates developmental delays, especially in cognitive and language domains.
- Extremely preterm children have significant language deficits at corrected age, which worsen with chronological age.

## Abstract

What are the main findings?
At 2 years, corrected age reveals selective developmental vulnerabilities, whereas chronological age indicates a generalised delay.Greater prematurity is associated with poorer developmental performance.

At 2 years, corrected age reveals selective developmental vulnerabilities, whereas chronological age indicates a generalised delay.

Greater prematurity is associated with poorer developmental performance.

What are the implications of the main findings?
Corrected age should be used at least until 24 months in the developmental assessment of pre-term children.Age correction should be tailored according to gestational age and developmental domain to im-prove clinical accuracy.

Corrected age should be used at least until 24 months in the developmental assessment of pre-term children.

Age correction should be tailored according to gestational age and developmental domain to im-prove clinical accuracy.

Background: Preterm birth is a significant risk factor for neurodevelopmental delays, but the appropriate use and timing of age correction for developmental assessment remain debated. Objective: This study investigated psychomotor development in preterm children at two years of age, with the aim of clarifying whether age correction remains necessary at this stage, particularly across different gestational age groups. Methods: A total of 161 preterm infants were assessed at a mean chronological age of 25.4 months (mean corrected age: 23.3 months) and compared with two control groups of typically developing children matched for gender and either corrected age (Control–Corr, N = 88) or chronological age (Control–Chron, N = 87). The preterm group was further stratified by gestational age: extremely preterm (<28 weeks), very preterm (28–31 weeks), and moderate-to-late preterm (32–36 weeks). Cognitive, Language (Receptive, Expressive), and Motor (fine, gross) scales of Bayley-III were analysed using t-tests and MANOVAs. Results: Using corrected age, preterm children showed a selective profile, with deficits in Receptive Language, borderline mean score in Gross Motor, and preserved performance in Cognitive, Expressive Communication, and Fine Motor. When compared with controls of the same age, significant differences emerged in the Cognitive, Language, and Gross Motor, but not Fine Motor, domains. In contrast, scoring by chronological age produced a generalised delay, with preterm children performing significantly worse than chronological-age controls across all domains. Subgroup analyses further showed that extremely preterm children already displayed marked Language vulnerabilities at corrected age, which became more severe with chronological scoring and extended to other domains. Very preterm children also fell into the deficit range in Cognitive, Language, and Gross Motor scales/subscales when chronological age was applied, whereas moderate-to-late preterm children performed comparatively better. Conclusions: Developmental assessment using corrected age remains essential at least until 24 months, especially for extremely and very preterm children, to avoid substantial overestimation of developmental difficulties. Chronological scoring, while helpful to highlight persistent vulnerabilities, may inflate delay classification if used too early. Tailoring correction strategies by gestational age and developmental domain could provide a more accurate and clinically meaningful representation of preterm children’s developmental trajectories.