Heterogeneity in chronic disease outcomes among women and men in midlife: examining the role of stability and change in childhood economic hardship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we advance existing research on the long-term effects of childhood disadvantage on health in adulthood by examining how the timing and duration of childhood economic hardship differentiates between those at low and high risk of chronic disease onset in midlife for women and men, across four different health outcomes. The study uses prospective data on childhood and adulthood from the US Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Discrete time hazard models are estimated using logistic regression to determine how experiences of childhood economic hardship affect the risk of disease onset in midlife differently for men and women. Results indicate that, in general, childhood economic context results in an increased risk of multiple diseases for women but not for men. Specifically, women who experienced long-term economic hardship in childhood, or began life in poverty but moved out of poverty in childhood, were more likely to experience the onset of diabetes, arthritis, and cardiovascular diseases in midlife, net of other factors, such as adult resources. The impact of childhood economic hardship on disease onset also varied by age for women but not for men, and this relationship was also dependent on the health outcome examined. This study draws attention to the importance of conceptualizing and measuring childhood disadvantage as dynamic, and reveals that the process of cumulative disadvantage may be different for women and men.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".