Childhood abuse in the etiological continuum underlying psychosis from first-episode psychosis to psychotic experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOAL: The present study aimed to examine the prevalence of child abuse across the continuum of psychosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 198 individuals divided in three groups: (1) 48 FEP patients, (2) 77 individuals scoring high in Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE), classified as "High CAPE" group and (3) 73 individuals scoring low, classified as "Low CAPE" group. Childhood abuse was assessed using self-report instruments. Chi(2) tests and logistic regression models controlling by sex, age and cannabis were used to perform three comparisons: (i) FEP vs. Low CAPE; (ii) FEP vs. High CAPE and (iii) High CAPE vs. Low CAPE. RESULTS: The frequency of individuals exposed to childhood abuse for FEP, High CAPE and Low CAPE groups were 52.1%, 41.6% and 11%, respectively. FEP and High CAPE group presented significantly higher rates of childhood abuse compared to Low CAPE group, however, no significant differences were found between FEP and High CAPE groups regarding the frequency of childhood abuse. CONCLUSION: There is an increasing frequency of childhood abuse from low subclinical psychosis to FEP patients. However, childhood abuse is equally common in FEP and at risk individuals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".