Attachment, Childhood Abuse, and IBD-related Quality of Life and Disease Activity Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined attachment style as a moderator of the relationship between childhood abuse and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related outcomes. METHODS: Study participants were 205 patients with IBD from Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. Participants completed self-report questionnaires regarding personal relationships, abuse history, and IBD-related information. Multiple regression models were fit using 3 outcome variables: disease-related quality of life (QOL), disease activity for ulcerative colitis, and disease activity for Crohn's disease. RESULTS: Patients reporting less severe abuse and low levels of avoidant attachment had the highest levels of QOL, whereas patients reporting high levels of avoidant attachment had the lowest levels of QOL, regardless of abuse severity. Patients reporting greater anxious attachment had lower QOL scores. Patients reporting less severe abuse and low levels of avoidant attachment had the lowest levels of disease activity, whereas patients reporting high levels of avoidant attachment had the highest levels of ulcerative colitis-related disease activity, regardless of abuse severity. However, for anxious attachment, there was no significant main effect or significant interaction of abuse by anxious attachment on ulcerative colitis-related disease activity. Childhood abuse and attachment style were not found to be associated with Crohn's disease-related disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: Adult attachment style may moderate the relationship between childhood abuse and IBD-related outcomes, by impacting one's QOL and disease activity. Distinct types of insecure attachment styles may impact these relationships differently. Psychological interventions focusing on attachment styles of patients with IBD have the potential to improve IBD-related QOL and disease activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".