Childhood Sexual Abuse and Brain Development: A Discussion of Associated Structural Changes and Negative Psychological Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of traumatic exposure have been researched for many years and studies have shown that the parts of the brain affected by sexually traumatic experiences in childhood are also linked to many physical and psychological problems, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, somatic complaints and suicide. Neuroimaging studies have provided a breadth of evidence that childhood sexual abuse is related to structural changes in the brain. Taken together, childhood sexual abuse affects brain development, leading to differences in brain anatomy and functioning that have lifelong consequences for mental health. Several limitations of neuroimaging research on childhood sexual abuse are discussed, including a lack of refined and sensitive neuroimaging measures and problems interpreting results of structural imaged subjects with associated psychiatric conditions. Future, large‐scale studies are warranted to examine the type and severity of the sexual abuse and how each of the levels of childhood sexual abuse contributes to structural and functional changes. Furthermore, future studies are needed to control for comorbid psychiatric conditions in order to disentangle the effects of childhood sexual abuse from psychiatric conditions that damage brain development. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ‘Childhood sexual abuse affects brain development, leading to differences in brain anatomy and functioning that have lifelong consequences for mental health’ Key Practitioner Messages Childhood sexual abuse is linked to observable structural changes in the brain. These structural changes in the brain are associated with a myriad number of negative psychological effects. Research is limited in elucidating the role of childhood sexual abuse on brain development, as the bulk of the research has focused only broadly on child maltreatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".