MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of functional impairment on internalizing symptom trajectories in adolescence: A longitudinal, growth curve modelling study

2012· article· en· W2064796797 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristin Cleverley, Kathryn Bennett, Eric Duku

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health Agency of CanadaInstitut pour la Recherche en Santé PubliqueFrancis Crick Institute
KeywordsFunctional impairmentPsychologyPsychosocialClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studyAssociation (psychology)NosologyPsychiatryMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the fact that psychosocial and functional impairment has long been acknowledged as an important aspect of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, relatively little is known about the longitudinal relationship between psychiatric symptoms and functional impairment. This is particularly true in childhood and adolescence. Understanding how symptoms relate to functional impairment is of great importance to clinicians and researchers as it is essential to nosology, treatment, and prognosis. This study sought to understand the developmental relationship between internalizing symptoms, functional impairment and gender in a sample of youth aged 10-15 using growth curve methods. Key findings indicate that the presence of functional impairment was associated with increased baseline internalizing symptoms scores but had no effect on the slope of internalizing symptoms trajectories during adolescence. The study highlights that the association between internalizing symptoms and functional impairment appears to be constant, linear and does not vary by gender.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207