The contributions of fertility during adolescence to disability across the life-course: hypothesized causal pathways, research gaps, and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Robust associations have been identified between fertility during adolescence and the disablement process, including pathologies, impairments, functional limitations and disability. Limited theoretical or empirical research considers how and why such relationships exist generally or with the individual associated components of disablement.Objective To consolidate and critically evaluate literature to describe testable, theory-based hypotheses to guide future research on the mechanisms by which fertility during adolescence contributes to disablement.Methods Targeted literature review of research from diverse global settings contextualised in two well-accepted theoretical frameworks in life-course epidemiology: the cumulative risk model and the critical period approach.Results Five hypothesised causal pathways linking adolescent fertility to disablement in later life are described: 1) Causal relationship initiated by fertility during adolescence; 2) Common cause(s) for both, such as adverse childhood experiences; 3) Contributing cause(s) to adolescent fertility; 4) Interaction between adolescent fertility and other risk factors; and 5) Critical period effects unique to adolescence. Most research on the topic is on pathologies versus functional limitations and disability.Conclusion We highlight promising research avenues to inform future research and interventions on adolescent fertility and the disablement process. This work provides theoretical clarity, identifies research gaps, and offers hypotheses-testing opportunities for future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".