Longitudinal studies of child mental disorders in the general population: A systematic review of study characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Longitudinal studies of child mental disorders in the general population (herein study) investigate trends in prevalence, incidence, risk/protective factors, and sequelae for disorders. They are time and resource intensive but offer life-course perspectives and examination of causal mechanisms. Comprehensive syntheses of the methods of existing studies will provide an understanding of studies conducted to date, inventory studies, and inform the planning of new longitudinal studies. Methods: A systematic review of the research literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO was conducted in December 2022 for longitudinal studies of child mental disorders in the general population. Records were grouped by study and assessed for eligibility. Data were extracted from one of four sources: a record reporting study methodology, a record documenting child mental disorder prevalence, study websites, or user guides. Narrative and tabular syntheses of the scope and design features of studies were generated. Results: = 151 to 64,136. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United States and at the city/town level. Internalizing disorders and disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders were the most frequently assessed mental disorders. Of studies reporting methods of disorder assessment, almost all used measurement scales. Individual, familial and environmental risk and protective factors and sequelae were examined. Conclusions: These results summarize characteristics of existing longitudinal studies of child mental disorders in the general population, provide an understanding of studies conducted to date, encourage comprehensive and consistent reporting of study methodology to facilitate meta-analytic syntheses of longitudinal evidence, and offer recommendations and suggestions for the design of future studies. Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/73HSW.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".