The persistent effects of foetal growth on child and adolescent mental health: longitudinal evidence from a large population-based cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low birth weight for one's gestational age is associated with higher rates of child psychopathology, however, most studies assess psychopathology cross-sectionally. The effect of such foetal growth restriction appears to be strongest for attention problems in childhood, although adult studies have found associations with a range of outcomes, from depression to psychosis. We explore how associations between foetal growth and psychopathology change across age, and whether they vary by sex. We used a large nationally representative cohort of children from Ireland (N ~ 8000). Parents completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 3 time points (age 9, 13 and 17). Outcomes included a total problems scale and subscales measuring attention/hyperactivity, peer, conduct and emotional problems. Foetal growth had significant associations with all problem scales, even after controlling for sex, socioeconomic factors and parental mental health. The magnitude of these effects was small but relatively stable across ages 9-17. In males, foetal growth had the strongest associations with attention/hyperactivity and peer problems, whereas females showed more widespread associations with all four subscales. There was a trend for the association between foetal growth and emotional problems to increase with advancing age, approaching the borderline-abnormal threshold by age 17. Reduced foetal growth predicted persistently higher scores on all measured aspects of child and adolescent psychopathology. Associations with child attention/hyperactivity may generalize to a wider array of adult psychopathologies via adolescent-onset emotional problems. Future studies should explore potential age-dependent effects of foetal growth into the early 20s.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".