Parenting stress in infancy was associated with neurodevelopment in 24‐month‐old children with congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Having a child with congenital heart disease (CHD) is stressful for parents, but research on the impact this stress can have on child development has been lacking. We investigated the associations between parenting stress when children were infants and neurodevelopmental outcomes in toddlers with CHD. METHODS: This study was carried out at the Neurocardiac Clinic at the Sainte-Justine University Hospital in Montréal, Canada. Patients born from 2012 to 2019 and followed up to 24 months of age were recruited. Parenting stress levels were measured when the child was 4-6 months and 24 months and the child's neurodevelopment was assessed at 24 months. Multiple linear regressions analyses were carried out. RESULTS: We studied 100 children (56% boys) with CHD. Most of the parenting stress scores were below the clinical threshold. However, they accounted for a significant part of the variance in the children's cognitive (15%-16%), receptive language (14%-15%) and gross motor outcomes (15%-18%). They had no impact on the children's expressive language or fine motor outcomes. CONCLUSION: Higher parenting stress was associated with poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes in toddlers with CHD. Early screening of parenting stress in CHD clinics is necessary to provide individualised intervention for parents and optimise neurodevelopmental outcomes in children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".