MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400461980 · doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100984

Cardiovascular disease in adults with a history of out-of-home care during childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

2024· review· en· W4400461980 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. David Batty, Mika Kivimäki, Ylva B. Almquist, Johan G. Eriksson, Mika Gissler, Emmanuel Gnanamanickam, Mark Hamer, Josephine Jackisch, Hee‐Soon Juon, Markus Keski‐Säntti, Chaiquan Li, Tuija M. Mikkola, Emily Murray, Amanda Sacker, Leonie Segal, Philipp Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Europe · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseGovernment of South AustraliaVetenskapsrådetAcademy of FinlandEconomic and Social Research CouncilFoundation for Cardiovascular ResearchNuffield FoundationNational Institute on AgingForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdSydäntutkimussäätiöWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilNHS Innovation Accelerator
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineProspective cohort studySystematic reviewCohort studyDiseaseCohortGerontologyPediatricsIntensive care medicineMEDLINEInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background While individuals who were separated from their biological family and placed into the care of the state during childhood (out-of-home care) are more prone to developing selected adverse health problems in adulthood, their risk of cardiovascular disease is uncertain. Our aim was to explore this association by pooling published and unpublished results from prospective cohort studies. Methods We used two approaches to identifying relevant data on childhood care and adult cardiovascular disease (PROSPERO registration CRD42021254665). First, to locate published studies, we searched PubMed (Medline) until November 2023. Second, with the objective of identifying unpublished studies with the potential to address the present research question, we scrutinised retrieved reviews on childhood out-of-home care and other adult health outcomes. Included studies were required to satisfy three criteria: a cohort study in which the assessment of care was made prospectively pre-adulthood (in the avoidance of recall bias); data on an unexposed comparator group were available (for the computation of relative risk); and a diagnosis of adult cardiovascular disease events (coronary heart disease, stroke, or their combination) had been made (as opposed to risk factors only). Collaborating investigators provided study-specific estimates which were aggregated using random-effects meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess individual study quality. Findings Twelve studies (2 published, 10 unpublished) met the inclusion criteria, and investigators from nine provided viable results, including updated analyses of the published studies. Studies comprised 611,601 individuals (301,129 women) from the US, UK, Sweden, Finland, and Australia. Five of the nine studies were judged to be of higher methodological quality. Relative to the unexposed, individuals with a care placement during childhood had a 51% greater risk of cardiovascular disease in adulthood (summary rate ratio after age- and sex-adjustment [95% confidence interval]: 1.51 [1.22, 1.86]; range of study-specific estimates: 1.07 to 2.06; I 2 = 69%, p = 0.001). This association was attenuated but persisted after adjustment for socioeconomic status in childhood (8 studies; 1.41 [1.15, 1.72]) and adulthood (9 studies, 1.29 [1.11, 1.51]). Interpretation Our findings show that individuals with experience of out-of-home care in childhood have a moderately raised risk of cardiovascular disease in adulthood. Funding Medical Research Council; National Institute on Aging; Wellcome Trust.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - EuropeSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207