MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994818797 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13622-3

Stress sensitization among severely neglected children and protection by social enrichment

2019· article· en· W2994818797 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Wade, Charles H. Zeanah, Nathan A. Fox, Florin Tibu, Laura Ciolan, Charles A. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthBinder Family FoundationJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
KeywordsPreadolescenceNeglectFoster carePsychologyVulnerability (computing)Intervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychopathologyRandomized controlled trialMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood adversity may sensitize certain individuals to later stress which triggers or amplifies psychopathology. The current study uses data from a longitudinal randomized controlled trial to examine whether severe early neglect among children reared in institutions increases vulnerability to the effects of later stressful life events on externalizing problems in adolescence, and whether social enrichment in the form of high-quality foster care buffers this risk. Children abandoned to Romanian institutions were randomly assigned to a foster care intervention or care-as-usual during early childhood. A sample of never-institutionalized children served as a comparison group. Here we report that, among those with prolonged institutional rearing, more stressful life events in preadolescence predicted higher externalizing problems in adolescence. This effect was not observed for never-institutionalized children or those in foster care, thus providing experimental evidence that positive caregiving experiences protect against the stress-sensitizing effects of childhood neglect on externalizing problems in adolescence.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207