Healthy Foundations Study: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate biological embedding of early-life experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adverse early experiences are associated with long-lasting disruptions in physiology, development and health. These experiences may be 'biologically embedded' into molecular and genomic systems that determine later expressions of vulnerability. Most studies to date have not examined whether preventive interventions can potentially reverse biological embedding. The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) is an evidence-based intervention with demonstrated efficacy in improving prenatal health, parenting and child functioning. The Healthy Foundations Study is an innovative birth cohort which will evaluate the impact of the NFP on biological outcomes of mothers and their infants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Starting in 2013, up to 400 pregnant mothers and their newborns were recruited from the British Columbia Healthy Connections Project-a randomised controlled trial of the NFP, and will be followed to child aged 2 years. Women were recruited prior to 28 weeks' gestation and then individually randomised to receive existing services (comparison group) or NFP plus existing services (intervention group). Hair samples are collected from mothers at baseline and 2 months post partum to measure physiological stress. Saliva samples are collected from infants during all visits for analyses of stress and immune function. Buccal swabs are collected from infants at 2 and 24 months to assess DNA methylation. Biological samples will be related to child outcome measures at age 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval from seven research ethics boards. Findings from this study will be shared broadly with the research community through peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations, as well as seminars with our policy partners and relevant healthcare providers. The outcomes of this study will provide all stakeholders with important information regarding how early adversity may lead to health and behavioural disparities and how these may be altered through early interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01672060; Pre-results.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".