Timing of Delivery of Low‐Risk Persons and the Risk of Attention‐Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Offspring: Sweden and British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An evidence gap exists concerning the timing of delivery at 37-42 weeks and the risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in offspring. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between timing of delivery in low-risk pregnancies at term (37-42 weeks) gestations and ADHD in offspring. METHODS: This population-based cohort study comprised 1,424,453 singletons in Sweden and 403,765 in British Columbia (BC), Canada, live-born at 37-42 completed weeks to low-risk pregnant women between 2000 and 2018. Children were followed up from age 1 until the date of death, emigration, their first diagnosis, or December 2020 (study's end date). The exposure was time of delivery assessed through gestational age, and the outcome was the diagnosis of ADHD. Cox regression models were used to examine the association between gestational age at delivery and ADHD. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 59,989 children in Sweden were diagnosed with ADHD (4.5 per 1000 child-years). Correspondingly, in BC, during the same period, there were 27,445 children diagnosed with ADHD (7.4 per 1000 child-years). In Sweden, the adjusted hazard of ADHD was 10%, 6%, and 3% higher at 37, 38, and 39 weeks gestation compared with those born at ≥ 38, ≥ 39, and ≥ 40 weeks, respectively. In BC, the corresponding hazards were 9%, 6%, and 3%, respectively. Both regions showed no elevated ADHD risks for infants born at 40 weeks compared to those born at ≥ 41 weeks, with slightly lower rates at 40 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk pregnancies, births at 37 and 38 weeks were associated with a higher ADHD risk, while births at 40 weeks showed no increased risk compared with those born at later gestations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".