Adverse childhood experiences and household food insecurity among children aged 0–5 years in the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although studies have examined the association between adverse childhood experiences (ACE) and health and mental health outcomes, few studies have investigated the association between ACE and household food insecurity among children aged 0-5 years in the USA. The objective of this study is to investigate the association between ACE and household food insecurity among children aged 0-5 years. DESIGN: The data used in this study came from the 2016-2017 National Survey of Children's Health. Data were analysed using multinomial logistic regression with household food insecurity as the outcome variable. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: An analytic sample of 17 543 children aged 0-5 years (51·4% boys). RESULTS: Of the 17 543 respondents, 83·7% experienced no childhood adversity. About one in twenty (4·8%) children experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity. Controlling for other factors, children with one adverse childhood experience had 1·43 times the risk of mild food insecurity (95 % CI 1·25, 1·63) and 2·33 times the risk of moderate-to-severe food insecurity (95 % CI 1·84, 2·95). The risk of mild food insecurity among children with two or more ACE was 1·5 times higher (95 % CI 1·24, 1·81) and that of moderate-to-severe food insecurity was 3·96 times higher (95 % CI 3·01, 5·20), when compared with children with no childhood adversity. CONCLUSION: Given the critical period of development during the first few years of life, preventing ACE and food insecurity and early intervention in cases of adversity exposure is crucial to mitigate their negative impact on child development.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".