Mobile Media Device Use is Associated with Expressive Language Delay in 18-Month-Old Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the association between mobile media device use and communication delays in 18-month-old children. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2011 and December 2015 within the TARGet Kids! primary care research network. Children were included if parents reported their child's mobile media device use and completed a validated questionnaire for communication delay at the 18-month well child visit. Mobile media device use was measured using a parent-reported survey instrument. Daily mobile media device use was calculated as a weighted average of typical weekday and weekend day mobile media device use. Two communication outcomes were investigated: (1) expressive speech delay and (2) other communication delays, as measured by the Infant Toddler Checklist. RESULTS: The study sample included 893 children (mean age 18.7 months, 54.1% male). Most parents reported 0 minutes per day of mobile media device use in their children (n = 693, 77.6%). Among children whose parents reported any mobile media device use (n = 200, 22.4%), the median daily mobile media device use was 15.7 minutes (range 1.4-300). The prevalence of parent-reported expressive speech delay was 6.6%, and the prevalence of other parent-reported communication delays was 8.8%. For children who used a mobile media device, each additional 30-minute increase in daily mobile media device use was associated with increased odds of parent-reported expressive speech delay (ORa = 2.33, 95% confidence interval, 1.25-4.82). No relationship was observed between mobile media device use and other parent-reported communication delays. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated a significant association between mobile media device use and parent-reported expressive speech delay in 18-month-old children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".