Relação entre eventos adversos na infância materna e o desenvolvimento infantil: revisão sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years ago, it was conducted the first study to access Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and their relation to outcomes in adulthood. The effects of exposure to childhood trauma can also be transmitted to other generations. The systematic review (SR), therefore, is established to determine if there is a reliable association between maternal ACEs in childhood and altered child development. We conducted a systematic review according to the guidelines of the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and the PRISMA-E (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review with a Focus on Health Equity). The protocol was register with PROSPERO #CRD42018111456. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in the following databases, using PECOS strategy: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, SCOPUS, LILACS, SciELO and OpenGrey. We included observational studies that showed offspring’s health outcomes (global development, cognitive, language, or brain architecture) from mothers exposed to adverse events up to 18 years of age. Only articles with summaries in English, Portuguese or Spanish and published in the last 20 years, from 01/01/1998 onwards, were considered. Six studies (5 cohort and 1 cross-sectional) were selected at the end. Risk of bias and quality of the studies were also be assessed (STROBE - Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), NOS – Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). SR identified that maternal ACEs were associated with a negative impact on global child development, altered brain structure, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and with autism in the offspring.
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 | 0.041 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".