MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735300011 · doi:10.1002/nur.21809

Parenting stress and development of late preterm infants at 4 months corrected age

2017· article· en· W2735300011 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Kashif Mughal, Carla Ginn, Joyce Magill‐Evans, Karen Benzies

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsDevelopmental psychologyGross motor skillPsychologyChild developmentGestationInfant developmentMotor skillPediatricsMedicineClinical psychologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parenting stress has been linked to child development issues in early preterm infants, but less is known about its effects on development in infants born late preterm. We examined relationships between parenting stress of 108 mothers and 108 fathers and development of late preterm infants born at 34 0/7 to 36 6/7 weeks gestation. At 4 months corrected age, mothers and fathers completed the Parenting Stress Index (PSI-3); mothers were primary caregivers in almost all families and completed the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-2) on child development. Mothers reported significantly more stress than fathers on the PSI-3 Parent Domain. PSI-3 subscale scores from the Child Domain were significant predictors of mother-reported infant development as measured by the ASQ-2 in regression models: Reinforces Parent predicted Gross Motor, Mood predicted Communication, and Acceptability predicted Communication, Fine Motor, Problem Solving, and Personal -Social development scale scores. Experiences of parenting stress differed for mothers and fathers. Further research is required on specific dimensions of parenting stress related to development of late preterm infants.

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)0.002
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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Nursing & HealthSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207