Exposure to caring parenting and adult mental health in extremely low birthweight survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Individuals born at extremely low birthweight (ELBW; <1000 g) are exposed to early adversities that increase the risk of mental health problems in later life. Caring parenting has been shown to offset the negative effects of early adversity in general population samples. However, the long-term impact of caring parenting on the mental health of preterm survivors in adulthood is not known. METHODS: Using data from the world's oldest longitudinally followed cohort of ELBW survivors (n = 179) and matched normal birthweight (NBW) control participants (n = 145), we examined if caring parenting moderated the link between preterm birth and mental health at 30-35 years of age. Participants reported on the parenting they received from their mothers using the parental bonding instrument. Self-esteem and internalising problems (i.e. depression, anxiety) were self-reported at 30-35 years of age using the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and Young Adult Self-Report questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: A statistically significant interaction was found between birthweight status and caring maternal parenting on self-esteem and internalising psychopathology in adulthood. Stratified analyses demonstrated that caring parenting was associated with better self-esteem (P < 0.001) and lower levels of internalising symptoms (P = 0.001), but in NBW participants only. CONCLUSIONS: While the receipt of caring maternal parenting promoted mental health in adults born at NBW, it did not have the same protective effect on ELBW survivors. More research is needed to elucidate the aspects of parenting and the family environment that promote the long-term mental health of preterm survivors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".