Early Focused Attention Predicts Outcome for Children Born Prematurely
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence that early focused, but not casual, attention to objects reflects concurrent regulation of attention and active learning. Because attentional abilities are of particular relevance in preterm infants, we evaluated whether early focused attention would be a better predictor of later attention and cognitive function than casual attention in 55 children born at very low birth weight. Participants were tested initially at 7 months and then at 2, 3, and/or 4/5 years of age. Focused attention was defined as the duration of concentrated examination of objects during independent play. Outcome measures were maternal ratings on standard attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder rating scales and standardized cognitive assessments. Results indicate that 7-month focused attention was predictive of reported problems in hyperactivity/impulsivity at age 4/5 years and cognitive abilities at 2, 3, and 4/5 years; casual attention measures were not related to these outcomes. Early focused attention appears continuous with later attentional skills in at-risk infants and is related to cognitive abilities through the preschool years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".