How do childhood intelligence and early psychosocial adversity influence income attainment among adult extremely low birth weight survivors? A test of the cognitive reserve hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perinatal and later postnatal adversities have been shown to adversely affect socioeconomic trajectories, while enhanced early cognitive abilities improve them. However, little is known about the combined influence of these exposures on social mobility. In this study, we examined if childhood IQ moderated the association between four different types of postnatal adversity (childhood socioeconomic disadvantage, childhood sexual abuse, lifetime psychiatric disorder, and trait neuroticism) and annual earnings at 30-35 years of age in a sample of 88 extremely low birth weight survivors. Our results suggested that higher childhood IQ was associated with greater personal income at age 30-35. Extremely low birth weight survivors who did not face psychological adversities and who had higher childhood IQ reported higher income in adulthood. However, those who faced psychological adversity and had higher childhood IQ generally reported lower income in adulthood. Our findings suggest that cognitive reserve may not protect preterm survivors against the complex web of risk factors affecting their later socioeconomic attainment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".