Retrospective and prospectively assessed childhood adversity in association with major depression, alcohol consumption and painful conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Considerable evidence now links childhood adversity to a variety of adult health problems. Unfortunately, almost all of these studies have relied upon retrospective assessment of childhood events, creating a vulnerability to bias. In this study, we sought to examine three associations using data sources that allowed for both prospective and retrospective assessment of childhood events. METHODS: A 1994 national survey of children between the ages of 0 and 11 collected data from a 'person most knowledgeable' (usually the mother) about a child. It was possible to link data for n = 1977 of these respondents to data collected from the same people in a subsequent adult study. The latter survey included retrospective reports of childhood adversity. We examined three adult health outcomes in relation to prospectively and retrospectively assessed childhood adversity: major depressive episodes, excessive alcohol consumption and painful conditions. RESULTS: A strong association between childhood adversities (as assessed by both retrospective and prospective methods) and major depression was identified although the association with retrospective assessment was stronger. Weaker associations were found for painful conditions, but these did not depend on the method of assessment. Associations were not found for excessive alcohol consumption irrespective of the method of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings help to allay concerns that associations between childhood adversities and health outcomes during adulthood are merely artefacts of recall bias. In this study, retrospective and prospective assessment strategies produced similar results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".