Risk factors for developmental vulnerability: Insight from population-level surveillance using the Early Development Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Population-level studies may elucidate the most promising intervention targets to prevent negative outcomes of developmental vulnerability in children. This study aims to bridge the current literature gap on identifying population-level developmental vulnerability risk factors using combined social and biological/health information. Methods: This study assessed developmental vulnerability among kindergarten children using the 2016 Early Development Instrument (EDI) and identified risk factors of developmental vulnerability using EDI data cross-linked to a population-wide administrative health dataset. A total number of 23,494 children aged 5-6 were included (48% female). Prenatal, neonatal, and early childhood risk factors for developmental vulnerability were investigated, highlighting the most important ones contributing to early development. Results: The main risk factors for developmental vulnerability were children with a history of mental health diagnosis (risk ratio = 1.46), biological sex-male (risk ratio = 1.51), and poor socioeconomic status (risk ratio = 1.58). Conclusion: Our study encompasses both social and health information in a populational-level representative sample of Alberta, Canada. The results confirm evidence established in other geographic regions and jurisdictions and demonstrate the association between perinatal risk factors and developmental vulnerability. Based on these results, we argue that the health system should adopt a multilevel prevention and intervention strategy, targeting individual, family, and community together.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".