Early life attachment in term and preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Abstract Background Preterm birth is associated with atypical cognitive and socioemotional outcomes in childhood. Secure infant attachment protects against adverse outcomes, but could be modified by alterations in the early caregiving environment inherent to essential neonatal intensive care or co-morbidities of preterm birth. We aimed to test the hypothesis that preterm birth is associated with differences in infant attachment, and to investigate clinical, neurodevelopmental and socioeconomic variables that are associated with infant attachment. Methods 82 preterm and 75 term infants with mean (range) gestational age at birth 29.5 (22.1 – 32.9) and 39.6 (36.4 – 42.1) weeks, respectively, completed the Still-Face Paradigm (SFP) at nine months of corrected age. Attachment dimensions and categories were obtained from infant responses to the SFP during the reunion episode using a published coding scheme, and an alternative principal component (PC) and clustering strategy. Neurodevelopment was assessed using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, and socioeconomic status was operationalized as neighborhood deprivation. Results Preterm and term infants significantly differed in fretfulness, attentional PC scores and in their distribution between attachment clusters (p-values ≤ 0.3); with preterm infants exhibiting less fretful and more neutral responses to the SFP. Preterm and term infants did not significantly differ in distress, attentiveness to caregivers, emotional PC scores, or in their distribution between attachment styles (p-values ≥ .13). In the whole sample, fretfulness correlated with socioeconomic deprivation (r s = −0.18, p-value = .02). Conclusions Data reveal subtle attachment differences between preterm and term infants at nine months of age, which may not always be captured by traditional approaches for categorizing attachment. Findings suggests that caregiver-infant attachment relationships may not be fully resilient to the effects of prematurity on the developing infant, but this depends on how attachment is measured. Our results highlight putative links between socioeconomic deprivation and infant attachment that warrant further study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".