Is Childhood Physical Abuse Associated With Peptic Ulcer Disease? Findings From a Population-based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated childhood physical abuse and ulcers in a regionally representative community sample. Age, race and sex were controlled for in addition to five clusters of potentially confounding factors: adverse childhood conditions, adult socioeconomic status, current health behaviors, current stress and marital status, and history of mood/anxiety disorders. Childhood physical abuse is associated with many negative physical and psychological adult health outcomes. Two recent studies demonstrate a potential link between childhood physical abuse and peptic ulcer disease in adulthood. The authors use regional data for the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey. Of the 13,069 respondents with complete data on abuse and ulcers, 7.3% (n = 1,020) report that they had been physically abused as a child by someone close to them and 3.0% (n = 493) report that they had been diagnosed with peptic ulcers by a health professional. The regional response rate is approximately 84%. Findings show that those reporting abuse had more than twice the prevalence of ulcers than did those not reporting abuse (6.6% vs. 2.7%). The fully adjusted odd ratio of peptic ulcers among those who had reported childhood physical abuse is 1.68 (95% CI = 1.22, 2.32). A significant and stable relationship between childhood physical abuse and peptic ulcers is found, even when taking into account five clusters of potentially confounding factors. Prospective studies that apply the biopsychosocial model are likely to be the most effective for identifying the pathways that connect childhood physical abuse and ulcer disease.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".