Auditory Risk Factors at Birth and Language Development at 2 Years of Age: A Longitudinal Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To analyze the relationship between auditory risk factors at birth and subsequent language development in toddlerhood. Methods. Participants are 136 children from a longitudinal birth cohort follow-up at age 2 years. They were divided into 2 groups: One comprising 105 children without hearing risk factors at birth and another comprising 31 children with auditory risk factors at birth but normal hearing. Results. In children with and without risk factors, the combination of socio-emotional, socio-economic, and auditory risk factors at birth significantly predicted language development at age 2 years. Family socio-economic status had a significant impact on overall child development, even after controlling for socio-emotional development and the presence of risk factors. Conclusions. The study was conducted in an upper-middle income country with a socialized health care system. It underscores the importance of a holistic approach to early childhood language development, taking into account biological, socioeconomic, and emotional factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".