The association between maternal-reported responses to infant crying at 4 weeks and 6 months and offspring depression at 18: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to examine the association between maternal response to infant crying and the psychological health of the child in later life. Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) cohort, consisting of 15,247 pregnancies, 10,278 with exposure variables and 3201 complete cases were identified as having exposure, covariate and outcome data. Using a postal questionnaire, mothers were asked regarding their infant at 4 weeks and 6 months, 'If they cry what do you do?': (a) pick them up immediately; (b) if they cry, leave them for a while, and if they do not stop, pick them up; or (c) never pick them up until you are ready. Outcome was an International Statistical Classification-10th revision criteria (ICD-10) diagnosis of depression at 18 years for the infant. Offspring of mothers who at 4 weeks reported that they never picked their infants up until they were ready were more likely to have depression at 18 years (OR = 2.06, CI 0.95-4.47, adjusted for sociodemographic confounding variables). There was no evidence for an association at 6 months. Including adjustment variables reduced the strength of our association; an observed objective measure of maternal response rather than a self-report may have more accurately determined the mother's actual responses. There is some evidence for an association between maternal reporting of responses to infant crying at 4 weeks and risk of developing depression at 18 years. If this association is found to be causal, interventions encouraging mothers to represent and respond to their infants' emotional states may help prevent offspring depression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".