Conceptual issues in behavioral teratology and their application in determining long‐term sequelae of prenatal marihuana exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behavioral teratology, particularly as it is applied to the evaluation of cognition and behavior of children beyond the toddler stage, has become an area of burgeoning activity. In the area of drug abuse, children exposed in utero are often at developmental peril because of non-drug pre- and postnatal risk factors that make a causal association between the drug of interest and a behavioral teratogenic outcome increasingly problematic as the child gets older. METHODS: In the first portion of this review, the strategies that behavioral teratologists have undertaken to investigate the putative consequences of in utero exposure are discussed in terms of research design, statistical methods and interpretative approaches. In the second part of the paper, the relatively limited literature dealing with the behavioral teratological consequences of prenatal marihuana exposure, particularly in school age offspring, is reviewed. RESULTS: An emergent theme arising from primarily two longitudinal investigations is that in utero cannabis exposure does not impact upon standardized derived IQ scores but is negatively associated with attentional behavior and visual analysis/hypothesis testing. These findings are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that, among offspring beyond the toddler stage, prenatal marihuana exposure has a negative influence on aspects of executive function. Executive function is a 'top-down', multifaceted cognitive construct involved in organizing and integrating specific cognitive and output processes over a interval of time and is largely mediated by the late developing, prefrontal region of the brain. CONCLUSIONS: The results and the interpretation of the prenatal marihuana findings are discussed in terms of the behavioral teratogenic effects (or lack of effects) during the various developmental stages of the offspring, the non-unitary nature of executive function, cannabis receptors, and the consequences of chronic marihuana use in the non-pregnant population.
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 | 0.048 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".