Discrimination and manic symptoms in early adolescence: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate the prospective associations between four types of perceived discrimination (country of origin, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight) and the development of manic symptoms in a diverse, nationwide sample of adolescents aged 9-14 years in the U.S. METHODS: We analyzed prospective cohort data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (N = 7466; ages 9-14 years at Year 1 or 2 in 2017-2020; 48.5 % female; 39.4 % racial/ethnic minority). Multiple zero-inflated negative binomial analyses were conducted to examine the associations between Year 1 or 2 discrimination (by country of origin, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, weight, sum score), and Year 3 manic symptoms (7 Up Mania scale), adjusting for covariates (age, sex, race and ethnicity, household income, parental education, sipping alcohol, puffing tobacco, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, Year 1 manic symptoms, and study site). RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, perceived discrimination based on country of origin (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.46; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.86), sexual orientation (IRR = 1.36; 95 % CI 1.21-1.53), race and ethnicity (IRR = 1.28; 95 % CI 1.13-1.46), weight (IRR = 1.21 95 % CI 1.09-1.34), and sum scores (IRR = 1.18 5 % CI 1.12-1.24), were significantly associated with higher manic symptoms. CONCLUSION: Perceived discrimination based on country of origin, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, weight, and sum scores, are prospectively associated with greater manic symptoms in adolescents. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to address discrimination and associated psychological impacts. Efforts to reduce discrimination and to support affected adolescents are important components of comprehensive mental health care and public health strategies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".