Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and cardiovascular development from childhood to early adulthood: study protocol of the Niagara Longitudinal Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent reviews have found substantial links between a toxic childhood environment including child abuse and severe household dysfunction and adult cardiovascular disease (CVD). Collectively referred to as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), this toxic environment is prevalent among children, with recent Canadian estimates of child abuse at 27%-32%, and severe household dysfunction at 49%. Based on these prevalence rates, the potential effect of ACEs on CVD is more significant than previously thought. Yet, how ACEs amplify the risk for later CVD remains unclear. Lifestyle risk factors only partially account for this connection, instead directing attention to the interaction between psychosocial factors and physiological mechanisms such as inflammation. The Niagara Longitudinal Heart Study (NLHS) examines how ACEs influence cardiovascular health (CVH) from childhood to early adulthood. Integrating the stress process and biological embedding models, this study examines how psychosocial and physiological factors in addition to lifestyle factors explain the relationship between ACEs and CVH. METHODS: This follow-up study combines three baseline studies from 2007 to 2012 that collected CVH measures including child blood pressure, heart rate, left ventricular structure and function, arterial stiffness indices and baroreflex sensitivity on 564 children. Baseline data also include anthropometric, biological, lifestyle, behavioural, and psychosocial measures that varied across primary studies. Now over 18 years of age, we will recruit and retest as many participants from the baseline studies as possible collecting data on ACEs, CVH, anthropometric, lifestyle and psychosocial measures as well as blood, saliva and hair for physiological biostress markers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received for the NLHS follow-up. Written consent to participate in the follow-up study is obtained from each participant. Results testing all proposed hypotheses will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
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 | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".