Developmental programming of happiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being born at an extremely low birth weight (ELBW; <1,000 grams) is presumed to reflect a suboptimal intrauterine environment and thus presents an opportunity for examining developmental programming hypotheses. Interfacing prenatal programming and differential susceptibility hypotheses, we tested whether individuals with ELBW in different childhood rearing environments showed different attention biases to positive and negative facial emotions in adulthood. Using the oldest known, prospectively followed cohort of ELBW survivors, we found that relative to normal birth weight controls (NBW; >2,500 grams), ELBW survivors displayed the highest and lowest attention bias to happy faces at age 30-35, depending on whether their total family income at age 8 was relatively low (environmental match) or high (environmental mismatch), respectively. This bias to happy faces was associated with a reduced likelihood of emotional problems. Findings suggest that differential susceptibility to positive emotions may be prenatally programmed, with effects lasting into adulthood. We discuss implications for integrating prenatal programming and differential susceptibility hypotheses, and the developmental origins of postnatal plasticity and resilience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".