Sensory processing and cortisol at age 4 years: Procedural pain‐related stress in children born very preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children born preterm display altered sensory processing, which may manifest as hyper- and/or hypo-sensitivity to sensory information. In this vulnerable population, exposure to neonatal pain-related stress is associated with altered stress regulation, as indexed by alterations in cortisol levels. It is unknown whether sensory processing behaviors are also affected by early life adversity, and whether dysregulated cortisol is related to sensory processing problems in preterm children. We examined relationships between neonatal pain-related stress, sensory processing profiles and cortisol levels at age 4 years, and whether pathways were sex-specific. In a longitudinal prospective cohort study, N = 146 infants born 24-32 weeks gestational age were recruited from BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; neonatal factors were collected from daily chart review. At age 4 years, saliva to assay cortisol was collected three times across cognitive assessment (pre-test, during, end) and parents completed the Short Sensory Profile questionnaire. Using generalized linear modeling, independent of other neonatal factors, higher number of invasive procedures (pain/stress) was associated with more sensory processing problems (total, hypo- and hyper-sensitivity) for girls only. After accounting for neonatal factors, greater cortisol output across the assessment was associated with more total sensory processing problems in girls only, and hypersensitivity to sensory input in both boys and girls. Findings suggest that in children born very preterm, how a child responds to sensory input and cortisol reactivity to stress are related but may have different precursors. Girls may be somewhat more susceptible to neonatal pain-related stress exposure in relation to sensory processing at preschool age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".