Impulsivity profiles across five harmonized longitudinal childhood preventive interventions and associations with adult outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to parse between-person heterogeneity in growth of impulsivity across childhood and adolescence among participants enrolled in five childhood preventive intervention trials targeting conduct problems. In addition, we aimed to test profile membership in relation to adult psychopathologies. Measurement items representing impulsive behavior across grades 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10, and aggression, substance use, suicidal ideation/attempts, and anxiety/depression in adulthood were integrated from the five trials ( N = 4,975). We applied latent class growth analysis to this sample, as well as samples separated into nonintervention ( n = 2,492) and intervention ( n = 2,483) participants. Across all samples, profiles were characterized by high, moderate, low, and low-increasing impulsive levels. Regarding adult outcomes, in all samples, the high, moderate, and low profiles endorsed greater levels of aggression compared to the low-increasing profile. There were nuanced differences across samples and profiles on suicidal ideation/attempts and anxiety/depression. Across samples, there were no significant differences between profiles on substance use. Overall, our study helps to inform understanding of the developmental course and prognosis of impulsivity, as well as adding to collaborative efforts linking data across multiple studies to better inform understanding of developmental processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".