Childhood Trauma and Lifetime Traumatic Brain Injury Among Individuals Who Are Homeless
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the association of childhood trauma and lifetime prevalence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) among individuals who are homeless. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Three cities in British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred individuals who are homeless and 19 years of age or older in 2009. MEASUREMENTS: Traumatic brain injury was identified with National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC) and childhood trauma using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ-SF). The relationship between childhood trauma and TBI was explored using multivariable logistic regression approach, adjusting for age, gender, any psychiatric diagnosis (anxiety disorder, mood disorder, psychosis), alcohol dependence, and substance dependence. The effect of number of childhood trauma types on TBI was also explored using multiple variables logistic regression approach adjusting for the same covariates. RESULTS: The prevalence of TBI was 63.6% and childhood maltreatment was 87.7% among the sample population. During childhood of 487 participants included in the analysis, 57.7% experienced physical abuse, 62.8% physical neglect, 45.8% sexual abuse, 62.4% emotional abuse, and 55.2% emotional neglect. After adjustment, childhood trauma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-5.02), childhood physical abuse (aOR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.19-3.87; n = 487), and childhood emotional abuse (aOR = 1.95; 95% CI, 1.09-3.51; n = 487) were significantly associated with history of TBI. After adjustment, having 4 different types of childhood trauma (aOR = 2.81; 95% CI, 1.11-7.31) was significantly associated with higher odds of reporting TBI history. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood trauma is significantly associated with lifetime prevalence of TBI in homeless populations in British Columbia, Canada, indicating an added level of vulnerability in this population. In addition, these findings suggest a potential role for childhood trauma prevention strategies and services mindful of the patients' history of trauma for this particularly vulnerable population.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".