Characterizing the dimensional structure of early-life adversity in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early-life adversity has profound consequences for youth neurodevelopment and adjustment; however, experiences of adversity are heterogeneous and interrelated in complex ways that can be difficult to operationalize and organize in developmental research. We sought to characterize the underlying dimensional structure of co-occurring adverse experiences among a subset of youth (ages 9-10) from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (N = 7115), a community sample of youth in the United States. We identified 60 environmental and experiential variables that reflect adverse experiences. Exploratory factor analysis identified 10 robust dimensions of early-life adversity co-occurrence, corresponding to conceptual domains such as caregiver substance use and biological caregiver separation, caregiver psychopathology, caregiver lack of support, and socioeconomic disadvantage / neighborhood lack of safety. These dimensions demonstrated distinct associations with internalizing problems, externalizing problems, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control. Non-metric multidimensional scaling characterized qualitative similarity among the 10 identified dimensions. Results supported a nonlinear three-dimensional structure representing early-life adversity, including continuous gradients of "perspective", "environmental uncertainty", and "acts of omission/commission". Our findings suggest that there are distinct dimensions of early-life adversity co-occurrence in the ABCD sample at baseline, and the resulting dimensions may have unique implications for neurodevelopment and youth behavior.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".