Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Economics · 1efd24fe Medicine · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: Higher cash gifts produced a −0.17 standard-deviation difference in children’s DunedinPACE, with no maternal epigenetic effect and no supported Epigenetic-g increase. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly supports the DunedinPACE effect, null maternal indices, and unsupported Epigenetic-g increase, but omits the payment amounts and four-year sample details.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Leans supported.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “In the Baby’s First Years randomized trial, low-income US mothers receiving US$333 per month rather than US$20 during their child’s first four years had...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
• “In the Baby’s First Years randomized trial, low-income US mothers receiving US$333 per month rather than US$20 during their child’s first four years had...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• Higher cash gifts produced a −0.17 standard-deviation difference in children’s DunedinPACE, with no maternal epigenetic effect and no supported Epigenetic-g increase.

  From Effects of a randomized controlled trial of unconditional cash transfers on epigenetic measures of ageing and cognition in children and mothers Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• Max Planck independently reports the randomized cash levels, slower child biological aging marker, and null maternal aging result.

  From Cash transfers to mothers with low income may slow biological aging in children Read 2026-09-29 Relevance STRONG Steps 0 Counted

  Institutional secondary coverage corroborates the intervention and direction of epigenetic findings; the primary paper supplies the exact −0.17 standard-deviation estimate.

• The quoted passage directly supports the DunedinPACE effect, null maternal indices, and unsupported Epigenetic-g increase, but omits the payment amounts and four-year sample details.

  From Effects of a randomized controlled trial of unconditional cash transfers on epigenetic measures of ageing and cognition in children and mothers Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Supports the outcome clauses; the payment amounts, sample counts, and age are not stated in this packet excerpt.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

• The cash comparison concerns low-income US mothers and their children during the first four years, with epigenetic measures designated secondary outcomes.

  From Effects of a randomized controlled trial of unconditional cash transfers on epigenetic measures of ageing and cognition in children and mothers Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Adds intervention timing and secondary-outcome scope.

• The child DunedinPACE analysis used 735 saliva samples collected at age 4, not every randomized child.

  From Effects of a randomized controlled trial of unconditional cash transfers on epigenetic measures of ageing and cognition in children and mothers Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Bounds the child analysis to age-4 saliva samples.

• The study does not establish whether the child epigenetic effect persists or predicts later health and behavior.

  From Effects of a randomized controlled trial of unconditional cash transfers on epigenetic measures of ageing and cognition in children and mothers Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Records the unresolved durability and downstream-outcome limitation.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
828b9078		8692a09b

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	fa9566d4, 8692a09b, 9e38c7c5, 07c6ceac, 9c36b26b

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
17184	APPENDED
17185	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
17190	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
17230	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
17244	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25335	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)