Prenatal programming of depression: cumulative risk or mismatch in the Ontario Child Health Study?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent with cumulative risk hypotheses of psychopathology, studies examining prenatal adversity and later mental health largely suggest that pre and postnatal stress exposures have summative effects. Fewer data support that a mismatch in stress levels between pre- and postnatal life increases risk (the mismatch hypothesis). In this retrospective cohort study using data from the 1983 Ontario Child Health Study (OCHS), we examined interactions between birth weight status and childhood/adolescent stress to predict major depression in adulthood. Ninety-five participants born at low birth weight (LBW; <2500 g) and 972 normal birth weight (NBW) control participants completed the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form Major Depression module at 21-34 years of age. A youth risk scale consisting of five stressful exposures (family dysfunction, socioeconomic disadvantage, parental criminality, maternal mental illness, exposure to other life stresses) indexed child/adolescent adversity. Birth weight groups did not differ by childhood risk score nor depression levels. A significant interaction was observed between birth weight and the youth risk scale whereby exposure to increasing levels of exposure to childhood/adolescent adversity predicted increased levels of depression in the NBW group, but lower rates in those born at LBW. Consistent with the mismatch hypothesis, data from a large, longitudinally followed cohort suggest that the mental health of adults born LBW may be more resilient to the adverse effects of childhood/adolescent stress. Taken in the context of previous studies of low birth weight infants, these findings suggest that the nature of associations between gestational stress and later mental health may depend on the magnitude of prenatal stress exposure, as well as the degree of resilience and/or plasticity conferred by their early-life environment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".