Intergenerational transmission of somatization behaviour: a study of chronic somatizers and their children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to an ill parent in childhood may be a risk factor for adult somatization. This study examines the hypothesis that somatizing adults are more likely to have been exposed to illness as a child and that in turn, their children are more likely to report ill health and to have more contact with medical services than children of other mothers. METHOD: A cross-sectional comparative investigation of three groups of mothers and their children of 4-8 years of age: (i) 48 mothers suffering from chronic somatization; (ii) 51 mothers with chronic 'organic' illness; and (iii) 52 healthy mothers was carried out. RESULTS: Somatizing mothers were more likely than other women to report exposure to childhood neglect and to physical illness in a parent (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.4-6.1). The children of these somatizing mothers were more likely to have health problems than were the children of organically ill or healthy women and had more consultations with family doctors (average annual rates: somatizers 4.9 (S.D. 3.8), organic 3.0 (S.D. 3.5) and healthy 2.8 (S.D. 2.6)). Multivariate modelling of consultation rates among children found significant main effects for maternal somatization, maternal childhood adversity, the child's tendency to worry about health and a two-way interaction of maternal childhood adversity and her somatization status. CONCLUSIONS: The hypotheses are broadly supported. However, it is important to emphasize the extent to which these findings are based on maternal reports.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".