Biospecimens in the HEALthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) Study: Rationale and protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HEALthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) Study, a multi-site prospective longitudinal cohort study, will examine human brain, cognitive, behavioral, social, and emotional development beginning prenatally and planned through early childhood. The longitudinal collection of biological samples from over 7000 birthing parents and their children within the HBCD study enables research on pre- and postnatal exposures (e.g., substance use, toxicants, nutrition), and biological processes (e.g., genetics, epigenetic signatures, proteins, metabolites) on neurobehavioral developmental outcomes. The following biosamples are collected from the birthing parent: 1) blood (i.e., whole blood, serum, plasma, buffy coat, and dried blood spots) during pregnancy, 2) nail clippings during pregnancy and one month postpartum, 3) urine during pregnancy, and 4) saliva during pregnancy and at in-person postnatal assessments. The following samples are collected from the child at in-person study assessments: 1) saliva, 2) stool, and 3) urine. Additionally, placenta tissue, cord blood, and cord tissue are collected by a subset of HBCD sites. Here, we describe the rationale for the collection of these biospecimens, their current and potential future uses, the collection protocol, and collection success rates during piloting. This information will assist research teams in the planning of future studies utilizing this collection of biological samples. • The HEALthy Brain and Child Development Study (HBCD) Study is one of the largest birthing parent-child cohort studies. • Biospecimens are collected in the HBCD Study to measure substance exposure and for use in future research. • Regular data releases will provide data to the scientific community.
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 | 0.042 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.010 |
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".