Childhood Motor Coordination and Adult Affective Experience Among Extremely Low Birth Weight Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor motor coordination in childhood has been associated in adulthood with more negative affect, less positive affect, and an increased risk of psychopathology. While survivors of extremely low birth weight (ELBW; < 1,000 grams) are more likely to manifest poor motor coordination than people born at normal birth weight (NBW; > 2,500 g), they have had better mental health outcomes than those with NBW who have motor difficulties. How emotion is experienced is an important risk factor for mental illness; yet, little is known about the affective experience of survivors of ELBW who also have poor motor coordination. In this longitudinal study, we examined interactions between birth weight status and childhood motor coordination on affective experience among 88 ELBW and 89 NBW participants. We first assessed childhood motor coordination at eight years of age, using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, and we later gathered self-report data regarding affective style, using the Positive and Negative Affect Scedule and the Affective Styles Questionnaire, when these participants were 30-35 years of age. We found a statistically significant interaction between motor coordination and birth weight status. As motor coordination worsened among ELBW survivors, positive affect increased, while we observed the opposite trend in NBW participants ( p < 0.05). There was no interaction for negative affect. Positive affect may contribute to previous findings of better relative adult mental health among ELBW survivors with poor childhood motor coordination. Strategies aimed at optimizing positive affect may be fruitful for optimizing mental health outcomes among preterm survivors and others with reduced motor proficiency.
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".