MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117498984 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00446

ADHD among young adults born at extremely low birth weight: the role of fluid intelligence in childhood

2014· article· en· W2117498984 on OpenAlexafffund
Ayelet Lahat, Ryan J. Van Lieshout, Saroj Saigal, Michael H. Boyle, Louis A. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyLow birth weightPsychopathologyBirth weightAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderIntelligence quotientCohortCohort studyPediatricsDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatryMedicinePregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor executive function (EF) has been linked to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Children born at extremely low birth weight (ELBW; <1000 g) have been found to show both poor EF, as well as elevated levels of symptoms of ADHD. In the present study, we examined whether fluid intelligence moderates the link between birth weight and later ADHD symptoms by prospectively following a cohort of 179 survivors who were born at ELBW. When participants were 8 years-old, they were matched with 145 normal birth weight (NBW; ≥2500 g) control participants. At age 8, fluid intelligence was measured, and during young adulthood (ages 22-26), participants' self-reported levels of ADHD symptoms were examined. We found that ELBW survivors, who also showed poor fluid intelligence, had the highest rates of ADHD symptoms, and particularly, symptoms of inattention. These findings point to the importance of examining developmental trajectories that contribute to risk for psychopathology in those exposed to intrauterine adversity.

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 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207