MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113400765 · doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3479

Child Abuse and Neglect and Cognitive Function at 14 Years of Age: Findings From a Birth Cohort

2010· article· en· W2113400765 on OpenAlex
Ryan Mills, Rosa Alati, Michael O’Callaghan, Jake M. Najman, Gail Williams, William Bor, Lane Strathearn

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectChild abuseMedicineCohortPoison controlCohort studyConfoundingChild neglectCognitionConfidence intervalPsychiatryInjury preventionPediatricsClinical psychologyPsychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between child maltreatment (abuse and neglect) and long-term cognitive outcomes within a prospective birth cohort. METHODS: A birth cohort of 7223 children was recruited. Independent reports of suspected child maltreatment were confidentially linked to the longitudinal study database. The principal predictor variable was notification to the state child-protection authority for suspected maltreatment (abuse, neglect, or both). The outcome variables were scores on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) reading test and Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM), completed at 14 years of age. Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 3796 subjects completed either the WRAT or RSPM. There was a higher loss to follow-up among children who had been reported to the state as suspected victims of maltreatment. After controlling for a range of possible confounders and modifiers, notification to the state for child maltreatment (abuse, neglect, or both) was associated with a lower score on both the WRAT (mean difference: -4.4 when the SD is 15 [95% confidence interval: -6.3 to -2.5]) and RSPM (mean difference: -4.8 when the SD is 15 [95% confidence interval: -6.7 to -2.9]). Both reported abuse and neglect were independently associated with lower reading ability and perceptual reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Both child abuse and child neglect are independently associated with impaired cognition and academic functioning in adolescence. These findings suggest that both abuse and neglect have independent and important adverse effects on a child's cognitive development.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it