Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T23:30:06.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are vital Twins prematures?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

L. Gedda  and
M. Milani-Comparetti
L. Gedda
Affiliation:
Istituto di Genetica Medica e Gemellologia « G. Mendel », Roma (Italia)
M. Milani-Comparetti
Affiliation:
Istituto di Genetica Medica e Gemellologia « G. Mendel », Roma (Italia)

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Authors have analyzed the data concerning length of gestation and neonatal weigth and length measurements in 2,440 living twin pairs (from the files of the Mendel Institute), in order to verify the frequent assumption that all twins should be considered as prematures and, as such, affected by congenital debility.

Comparing their findings with the standard values for prematures, they reach the conclusion that the majority of twins who have survived the perinatal period were not prematures. Furthermore, the less developed among such twins differ from single-born prematures by reason of their subsequent normal auxologic development, whereby the Authors propose that they should rather be considered as “premature-like”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 114 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1964

Footnotes

*

Paper read at the International Symposium on the neurophysiological, neuroclinical and psychological problems of the newborn. Rome, 1964.

References

Literature

1. Karn Mary, N.: Annals of Eugenics, Vol. 16, Part 4, 365–377, 1952.Google Scholar
2. Annuario ISTAT (1958).Google Scholar
3. Gedda, L., Poggi, D.: A. Ge. Me. Ge., XIII, 1. (1964).Google Scholar
4. Anderson, N. A., Brown, E. W., Lyon, R. A.: Amer. J. Dis. Childr., 65, 523, 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Kowlessar, M.: Physiology of prematurity, Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, 1961.Google Scholar
6. International Classification of Diseases, 1948.Google Scholar
7. Ylppö, A.: Z. Kinderheilk., 24, 111, 1919.Google Scholar
8. Föllmer, and Könninger, : Arch. Gynäk., 179, 694–708, 1951.Google Scholar
9. Brauns, L.: Ztschr. f. Kinderforsch., 43, 2. 86–129, 1934.Google Scholar
10. Gundborg, Uddenberg, Ejnar Munksgaard: Copenhagen, 1955.Google Scholar
11. Brock, J.: Biologische Daten für den Kinderarzt, Springer-Verlag, 1954.Google Scholar
12. Jabat, K.: Ann. Hum. Genet., 1964 27, 261.Google Scholar
13. Gedda, L.: Twins in history and science, Charles C Thomas, Springfield, 1962.Google Scholar