MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103947467 · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096032

Childhood psychosocial adversity and adult cortisol patterns

2012· article· en· W2103947467 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Power, Claudia Thomas, Leah Li, Clyde Hertzman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsLearning PartnershipUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity College LondonMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychosocialPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cortisol levels may be altered in childhood in association with maltreatment (neglect, abuse and witnessing abuse) and other adversities, yet little is known about whether effects on cortisol persist into later life. AIMS: To establish whether childhood psychosocial adversities predict cortisol levels in mid-adulthood. METHOD: Childhood psychosocial adversities were ascertained in the 1958 British birth cohort and cortisol was measured in two saliva samples, one 45 min after awaking (T(1)) and the other 3 h later the same day (T(2)), from 6524 participants aged 45 years. RESULTS: No association was seen for abuse or household dysfunction in childhood and adult cortisol levels. In women but not men, T(1) cortisol was lowered by 7.9% per unit increase in childhood neglect score (range 0-3); T(1) to T(2) cortisol decline was less steep. High levels of maltreatment (abuse, neglect, witnessed abuse) were associated with >25% lower T(1) cortisol in both men and women, and 24% higher T(2) cortisol for men after adjustment for concurrent depressive/anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In a non-clinical population, cumulative maltreatments in childhood were associated with flattened morning cortisol secretion in mid-adult life.

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)0.000
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 score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations71
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207