PEDIATRICS Vol. 39 No. 6 June 1967, pp. 940-941
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by YERUSHALMY, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by YERUSHALMY, J.

Nomenclature, Duration of Gestation, Birth Weight, Intrauterine Growth Dissenting Views

J. YERUSHALMY Ph.D.1

1 School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

Thank you for letting me see an advance copy of the Fetus and Newborn Committee's report on nomenclature and for the opportunity to comment on it. I believe that the overall effect of the report is to substitute gestational age for birth weight in classifying the newborn. This conclusion follows from a number of statements in the report, but mostly because a specific designation ("pre-term") is provided for short gestation and none for low birth weight. If the recommendations are followed, "pre-term" will replace "pre-mature" and short gestation will become the major criterion.