Social adversity at birth predicts disabling fatigue at 13 years: population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 1) Estimate the prevalence of chronic disabling fatigue at age 13, and 2) investigate associations with early family adversity, using a population-based birth cohort study. METHODS: The subjects were 10,001 children, of whom 5657 had sufficient data to define chronic disabling fatigue at age 13. Chronic disabling fatigue was defined as tiredness reported by mothers that had lasted for ≥ 3 months or ≥ 6 months, was disabling (school absence or prevented participation in hobbies/sport/leisure activities "quite a lot" or a "great deal"), and not due to another cause. Family adversity was defined by using 14 questions addressing housing, education, social relationships, and maternal health assessed prospectively at birth. We used multiple imputation to correct estimates of prevalence and association for loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 1995 teenagers had been tired for the last month, of whom 117 and 53 had chronic disabling fatigue of ≥ 3 and ≥ 6 months' duration, respectively. The estimated prevalence of chronic disabling fatigue of ≥ 3 and ≥ 6 months' duration was 2.07% and 0.94%, respectively, but increased to 2.44% and 1.30%, respectively, after imputing missing data. Prevalence was similar in boys and girls. The risk of chronic disabling fatigue increased with family adversity score (odds ratios: 1.25 [95% confidence interval: 1.09, 1.43] and 1.23 [1.01, 1.51] for ≥ 3 and ≥ 6 months' duration, respectively). Only 36 (30.77%) children with chronic disabling fatigue had consulted a doctor about their fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic disabling fatigue is more common in families who experienced early family adversity and is often not reported to health care services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".