T3. AFTER 20 YEARS OF RESEARCH ON CHILDHOOD TRAUMA IN SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH, WHERE ARE WE?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Childhood maltreatment affects one third of children and adolescents and constitutes one of the costliest public health burdens of our societies. In the last two decades, we observed an explosion of research on childhood trauma in the field of schizophrenia and early exposure to trauma has been associated with endophenotypes of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, with the risk of conversion to a major psychiatric disorder and with a worse pre- and post-morbid functioning. This study aimed to appraise the current state of the research on childhood trauma and schizophrenia by classifying the main objective of all articles published on this matter during the three last years. We conducted a systematic review of all articles on childhood trauma and schizophrenia published between 2016 and 2018. References for this review were identified through searches of PubMed and Medline for articles published from the beginning of January 2016 to the beginning of November 2018 by use of the terms “child abuse and neglect OR child abuse OR child neglect OR child maltreatment OR childhood adversity OR childhood victimization OR adverse childhood experiences” AND “schizo* OR psychosis OR psychoti* OR “ultra-high risk” OR hallucinat* OR delusion* OR paranoi*”. Of the 285 articles retrieved, 156 were retained. The main objective of the studies were classified as belonging to one of the following categories: Consequences (including studies on the association between childhood trauma and a characteristic of schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder), Mechanisms (including studies principally evaluating interaction effects or mediators of the association between childhood trauma and psychotic disorders), Intervention (including studies evaluating the effect of an intervention with a sample exposed to childhood abuse or neglect), and Others. A subset of 50 articles were reviewed independently by two coders. Intraclass correlations revealed excellent interrater reliability, with an average ICC of .958 [95% CI from .926 to .976, F(49,49)= 23.80, p<.001]. We observed that, between 2016 and 2018, only 7 articles addressed intervention (5%) while the majority (55%; n = 86) were treating of the now well-known fact that childhood trauma is associated with the clinical features of schizophrenia. These researches more often than not conclude with generalities about intervention. Interestingly, 30% (n = 47) principally aimed to identify potential mechanisms through which trauma may lead to psychotic symptoms or psychosis, and then be helpful in the design of future clinical research on interventions by addressing these mechanisms. The present review documented a surprising paradox: despite the increasing number of publications on the theme of child abuse and neglect in the field of schizophrenia, one can observe a paucity of reports on intervention. Clinical innovations and related intervention research should address the issues raised by the numerous and convincing correlational research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,060 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,024 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».