The Association Between Childhood Physical Abuse and Dyslexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between a history of dyslexia and childhood physical abuse in a large population-based epidemiological sample. It was hypothesized that the prevalence of dyslexia would be significantly higher in individuals who reported a childhood history of physical abuse in comparison to those who did not report such a history. A secondary analysis examined data from respondents 18 years and older from the Saskatchewan and Manitoba sample of the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). There were 13,640 respondents ages 18 and older. Due to missing data, the final sample size was 13,054 respondents. One third (34.8%) of respondents who reported they had been physically abused during their childhood or adolescence also reported being diagnosed with dyslexia in comparison with 7.2% of those who did not report being physically abused (p < .001). Initial adjustments for sociodemographic variables produced an odds ratio (OR) for dyslexia that was more than 7 times higher (OR = 7.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [4.42, 11.35]) for those who had reported being physically abused in comparison with their peers who did not report such a history; with additional adjustments for other adverse childhood experiences, these odds decreased only slightly to 6.09 times higher (95% CI = [3.58, 10.35]). Further research is needed to understand the mechanism linking physical abuse and dyslexia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".