Behavioral and Physiological Responsivity, Sleep, and Patterns of Daily Cortisol Production in Infants with and without Colic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe the behavioral and physiological responses associated with colic, the responses of 20 two-month-old infants with and 20 without colic were studied during a physical examination. Parents kept a diary of infant behaviors (including crying and fussing) for 3 days following the visit. Using Wessel, Cobb, Jackson, Harris, & Detwiler criteria, colic was defined as fussing/crying for 3 hr or more on each of the 3 days. Behavioral data coded by "blind" observers showed that during the physical exam, colic infants cried twice as much, cried more intensely, and were more inconsolable than were control infants. Despite these behavioral differences, heart rate, vagal tone, and cortisol measures indicated no appreciable difference in physiological responsivity for the two groups. At home, parents collected saliva cortisol samples at wakeup, midmorning, midafternoon, and evening for 2 days. In a finding similar to that shown by the laboratory data, the colic and control infants did not have different levels of daily average cortisol. These laboratory and home data provide no evidence of greater responsivity in the physiological substrate of difficult temperament for colic infants and are consistent with evidence of similarity in temperament once colic is resolved. At home, compared with control infants, colic infants did display a blunted rhythm in cortisol production. By diary, they also slept about 2 hr less per day than did control infants. Nighttime sleep was still significantly different when fussing/crying was statistically controlled. These data suggest that colic might be associated with a disruption or delay in the establishment of the circadian rhythm in activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and associated sleep-wake activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".