Neurocognitive, emotional and neuroendocrine correlates of exposure to sexual assault in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survivors of sexual assault are vulnerable to long-term negative psychological and physical health outcomes, but few studies have investigated changes in cognition, emotional processing and brain function in the early stages after sexual assault. We used a multimodal approach to identify the cognitive and emotional correlates associated with sexual assault in women. METHODS: Twenty-seven female survivors of sexual assault were included within 4 weeks of the traumatic event, and they were compared with 20 age-matched controls. Participants underwent functional MRI while performing cognitive/emotional tasks (n-back, emotional go/no-go, mental imagery). We also measured diurnal salivary cortisol and conducted neuropsychological assessments of attention and memory abilities. RESULTS: Relative to the control group, the survivors group had lower levels of morning cortisol and showed attentional deficits. We observed no between-group differences in brain activation during the n-back or mental imagery tasks. During the emotional go/no-go task, however, the survivors group showed a lack of deactivation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex when processing emotional material, relative to neutral material. Exploratory analyses in the survivors group indicated that symptom severity was negatively associated with cerebellar activation when positive emotional (happy) content interfered with response inhibition, and positively associated with cerebellar activation when thinking of positive (happy) memories. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size was the main limitation of this study. CONCLUSION: Dysfunctions in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the cerebellum may represent early functional brain modifications that alter higher cognitive processes when emotional material is involved.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".