Schizophrenia clinical symptom differences in women vs. men with and without a history of childhood physical abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood abuse has been implicated as an environmental factor that increases the risk for developing schizophrenia. A recent large population-based case-control study found that abuse may be a risk factor for schizophrenia in women, but not men. Given the sex differences in onset and clinical course of schizophrenia, we hypothesized that childhood abuse may cause phenotypic differences in the disorder between men and women. METHODS: We examined the prevalence of childhood physical abuse in a cohort of men and women with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Specifically, we examined differences in positive, negative, cognitive and depressive symptoms in men and women who reported a history of childhood physical abuse. We recruited 100 subjects for a single visit and assessed a history of childhood physical abuse using the childhood trauma questionnaire (CTQ) and clinical symptoms and cognition using the brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS), the calgary depression scale (CDS) and the repeatable battery of the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS) for cognition. RESULTS: Ninety-two subjects completed the full CTQ with abuse classified as definitely present, definitely absent or borderline. Twelve subjects who reported borderline abuse scores were excluded. Of the 80 subjects whose data was analyzed, 10 of 24 (41.6 %) women and 11 of 56 (19.6 %) men reported a history of childhood physical abuse (χ(2) = 4.21, df = 1, p = 0.04). Women who reported such trauma had significantly more psychotic (sex by abuse interaction; F = 4.03, df = 1.76, p = 0.048) and depressive (F = 4.23, df = 1.76, p = 0.04) symptoms compared to women who did not have a trauma history and men, regardless of trauma history. There were no differences in negative or cognitive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Women with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder may represent a distinct phenotype or subgroup with distinct etiologies and may require different, individually tailored treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".