Early life risk and resiliency factors and their influences on developmental outcomes and disease pathways: a rapid evidence review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) framework aims to understand how environmental exposures in early life shape lifecycle health. Our understanding and the ability to prevent poor health outcomes and enrich for resiliency remain limited, in part, because exposure-outcome relationships are complex and poorly defined. We, therefore, aimed to determine the major DOHaD risk and resilience factors. A systematic approach with a 3-level screening process was used to conduct our Rapid Evidence Review following the established guidelines. Scientific databases using DOHaD-related keywords were searched to capture articles between January 1, 2009 and April 19, 2019. A final total of 56 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were obtained. Studies were categorized into domains based on primary exposures and outcomes investigated. Primary summary statistics and extracted data from the studies are presented in Graphical Overview for Evidence Reviews diagrams. There was substantial heterogeneity within and between studies. While global trends showed an increase in DOHaD publications over the last decade, the majority of data reported were from high-income countries. Articles were categorized under six exposure domains: Early Life Nutrition, Maternal/Paternal Health, Maternal/Paternal Psychological Exposure, Toxicants/Environment, Social Determinants, and Others. Studies examining social determinants of health and paternal influences were underrepresented. Only 23% of the articles explored resiliency factors. We synthesized major evidence on relationships between early life exposures and developmental and health outcomes, identifying risk and resiliency factors that influence later life health. Our findings provide insight into important trends and gaps in knowledge within many exposures and outcome domains.
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 | 0.047 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".