MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049660154 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e3181ab2ebd

Shame, Guilt, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse at Risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus

2009· article· en· W2049660154 on OpenAlexaff
Karni Ginzburg, Lisa D. Butler, Janine Giese‐Davis, Courtenay E. Cavanaugh, Eric Neri, Cheryl Koopman, Catherine Classen, David Spiegel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsShameSexual abuseClinical psychologyChildhood abusePsychologyPsychiatryPosttraumatic stressMedicineInjury preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the effectiveness of group psychotherapy in reducing levels of shame and guilt in adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse at risk for HIV, and whether such reductions would mediate the effects of treatment on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. One hundred sixty-six women were randomized into 3 conditions: a trauma-focused group, a present-focused group, and a waitlist group. Women received 6 months of treatment and were assessed at pretreatment (T1), immediately posttreatment (T2), and 6 months posttreatment (T3). Both treatment conditions resulted in reduced shame and guilt. The treatment effect on PTSD symptoms was mediated by changes in shame, but it was not associated with changes in guilt. These findings suggest that, when treating childhood sexual abuse survivors' PTSD, it is important to address the negative self-appraisals, such as shame, that commonly accompany such symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207