MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early Adversity and Mental Health: Linking Extremely Low Birth Weight, Emotion Regulation, and Internalizing Disorders

2014· article· en· W2409361073 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordana A. Waxman, Ryan J. Van Lieshout, Louis A. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pediatric Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychopathologyStressorAffect (linguistics)PsychologyClinical psychologyLow birth weightMental healthChild psychopathologyEarly childhoodDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experience of early adversity can increase one's risk of psychopathology later in life. Extremely low birth weight (ELBW) provides a unique model of early adversity that affords us the opportunity to understand how prenatal and early postnatal stressors can affect the development of emotional, biological, and behavioural systems. Since the neuroendocrine system and emotion regulation can both be negatively affected by exposure to early adversity, and dysregulation in these regulatory systems has been linked to various forms of psychopathology, it is possible that these systems could mediate and/or moderate associations between early adversity, specifically ELBW, and later internalizing disorders. In this review, we discuss evidence of an early programming hypothesis underlying psychopathology and the identification of neuroendocrine markers of early adversity that may mediate/moderate the development of psychopathology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pediatric ReviewsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207