Childhood Cognition & Adult Outcomes of ELBW Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this thesis is to explore the associations between childhood cognitive abilities assessed at age 8 and health and socioeconomic outcomes at age 29-36 in extremely low birth weight survivors (ELBW, <1000g). Methods: Using data from the McMaster Extremely Low Birth Weight Cohort Study, Study 1 explores the influence of overall intelligence, fluid intelligence, and language abilities on the prevalence of lifetime major depressive disorder in ELBW survivors and normal birth weight comparison subjects. Study 2 examines the mediating role of overall intelligence, fluid intelligence, language abilities, quantitative reasoning, and academic achievement on the association between being born at ELBW and socioeconomic outcomes at age 29-36. The final study examines the moderating role of childhood cognitive functioning on links between postnatal psychosocial adversity and adult personal earnings in ELBW survivors. Results: Results from Study 1 suggest that childhood cognitive abilities do not influence the onset of major depressive disorder in ELBW survivors, but are protective against depression in normal birth weight individuals. Study 2 suggests that childhood cognitive abilities partially mediate the association between being born at ELBW and income attainment in adulthood, but not full time employment. Further, Study 2 suggests that this association is stronger in ELBW survivors who have neurosensory impairments. Results of Study 3 suggest that enhanced childhood cognitive functioning is not protective against postnatal psychological adversity in influencing income attainment, as those ELBW survivors with higher childhood intelligence and who suffered psychological adversity reported lower annual income at age 30. Conclusions: This thesis suggests that overall and specific cognitive abilities significantly influence adult outcomes in ELBW survivors and normal birth weight individuals. However, while cognitive reserve may not be protective against psychological adversity in ELBW survivors, early cognitive abilities are a critical indicator of socioeconomic attainment in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".