Prediction of Differential Adult Health Burden by Conduct Problem Subtypes in Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: A cardinal feature of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for conduct disorder is the distinction between childhood- vs adolescent-onset subtypes. Whether such developmental subtypes exist in the population and have different prognoses should be rigorously tested to inform the DSM-V. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the epidemiological validity of childhood- vs adolescent-onset conduct problems in a prospective birth cohort, and to assess whether life-course-persistent conduct problems are associated with a greater adult health burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our sample includes 526 male study members in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, a 1-year birth cohort (April 1, 1972, through March 30, 1973). Developmental trajectories were defined using prospective ratings of conduct problems at 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, and 26 years of age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health burden was assessed as mental and physical health problems at 32 years of age measured via diagnostic interviews and physical examinations. RESULTS: We identified the following 4 developmental subtypes of conduct problems through general growth mixture modeling: (1) childhood-onset/life-course-persistent, (2) adolescent onset, (3) childhood limited, and (4) low. At 32 years of age, study members with the life-course-persistent subtype experienced the worst health burden. To a lesser extent, those with the adolescent-onset subtype also experienced health problems. A childhood-limited subtype not specified by DSM-IV was revealed; its adult health outcomes were within the range of the cohort norm. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the epidemiological validity of the DSM-IV conduct disorder distinction based on age of onset but highlight the need to also consider long-term persistence to refine diagnosis. Preventing and treating conduct problems has the potential to reduce the adult health burden.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".