The role of parental psychopathology and family environment for social phobia in the first three decades of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the role of parental psychopathology and family environment for the risk of social phobia (SP) in offspring from childhood to early adulthood, encompassing the high risk period for SP. METHODS: A community sample of 1,395 adolescents was prospectively followed-up over 10 years. Offspring and parental psychopathology were assessed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) using the Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI), and direct diagnostic interviews in parents were supplemented by family history reports. Parental rearing was assessed by the Questionnaire of Recalled Rearing Behavior administered to offspring. Family functioning was assessed by the McMaster Family Assessment Device administered to parents. RESULTS: Parental SP was associated with offspring's risk to develop SP (OR=3.3, 95%CI:1.4-8.0). Other parental anxiety disorders (OR=2.9, 95%CI:1.4-6.1), depression (OR=2.6, 95%CI:1.2-5.4), and alcohol use disorders (OR=2.8, 95%CI:1.3-6.1) were also associated with offspring SP. Parental rearing styles of overprotection, rejection, and lack of emotional warmth were associated with offspring SP. Family functioning measures were not associated with offspring SP. Analyses of interaction of parental psychopathology and parental rearing indicated combined effects on the risk for offspring SP. CONCLUSIONS: Parental psychopathology and rearing were associated with offspring SP, independently as well as in their interaction. Further delineation of these associations is warranted as malleable components of these risk factors may provide potential targets for prevention programs. In addition, parent-to-offspring transmission of other internalizing disorders should be considered to examine the degree of diagnostic specificity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".