Is childhood physical abuse associated with anxiety disorders among adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have examined the association between childhood physical abuse (CPA) and anxiety disorders with inconsistent results. In order to help clarify this relationship, we investigated the association between CPA and current anxiety disorders while controlling for the following groups of factors: (1) demographics; (2) family background; (3) current socioeconomic status (SES); (4) current stressors; and (5) current mood disorders. Data from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey were analyzed. The sample included 12,481 respondents from the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The regional-level response rate was 84%. Fully 7.3% (n = 964) of respondents reported they had been physically abused as a child or adolescent by someone close to them and 4.4% (n = 540) reported they had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder by a health professional. A significant association between CPA and anxiety disorders was found when controlling for demographic factors, family background, current SES and stressors (OR = 1.61; 95% CI = 1.25, 2.08). The odds of anxiety disorders declined to non-significance when further statistical adjustments were made for current mood disorders. The findings of this research suggest that the relationship between CPA and anxiety may be largely explained by co-morbid mood disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".