Social phobia and potential childhood risk factors in a community sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the relationship between potential childhood risk factors and social phobia in an epidemiological sample. Identifying risk factors such as childhood adversities can often uncover important clues as to the aetiology of a disorder. This information also enables health care providers to predict which individuals are most likely to develop the disorder. METHODS: Data came from the Mental Health Supplement to the Ontario Health Survey of a survey of 8116 Canadian respondents, aged 15-64. Social phobia was diagnosed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Childhood risk factors were assessed by a series of standardized questions. RESULTS: A positive relationship was observed between social phobia and lack of close relationship with an adult, not being first born (in males only), marital conflict in the family of origin, parental history of mental disorder, moving more than three times as a child, juvenile justice and child welfare involvement, running away from home, childhood physical and sexual abuse, failing a grade, requirement of special education before age 9 and dropping out of high school. Many of these variables remained significant after controlling for phobias, major depressive disorder and alcohol abuse. The data also suggest that some childhood risk factors may interact with gender to influence the development of social phobia. CONCLUSIONS: Although an association was detected between social phobia and childhood risk factors, naturalistic prospective studies are needed to clarify the aetiological importance of these and other potential risk factors for the disorder.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".