MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154130574 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsj103

Psychological Correlates of Depression in Children with Recurrent Abdominal Pain

2006· article· en· W2154130574 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Kaminsky, M A Robertson, Deborah Dewey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsDisengagement theorySocial supportCoping (psychology)PsychologyClinical psychologyLocus of controlSelf-efficacyDepressive symptomsAbdominal painPsychiatryAnxietyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between coping style, social support, self-efficacy, locus of control, maternal adjustment, and depressive symptoms in children with recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) of childhood. METHODS: Fifty children with RAP (8-18 years) and their mothers were recruited from a gastroenterology clinic (GI) and community medical practices. Participants completed questionnaires that assessed coping style, social support, self-efficacy, locus of control, maternal adjustment, and psychological adjustment. RESULTS: Passive coping strategies such as isolating oneself from others, catastrophizing, and behavioral disengagement were associated with more child-reported depressive symptoms. Higher levels of self-efficacy and greater social support from teachers and classmates were associated with fewer child-reported depressive symptoms. Higher levels of maternal adjustment problems, higher social support from parents, and lower social support from classmates were associated with maternal reports of more child internalizing symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that coping style, self-efficacy, social support, and maternal adjustment are correlates of depressive symptoms in children with RAP.

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)0.002
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations61
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207