MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956577329 · doi:10.1177/0898264319861001

Genes, Childhood Trauma, and Late Life Depressive Symptoms

2019· article· en· W2956577329 on OpenAlexaff
Aniruddha Das

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMultinomial logistic regressionDepression (economics)PsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical abusePoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatrySubstance abuseOccupational safety and healthMedicineChild abuseMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Findings on gene-environment correlations suggest childhood “environments” may reflect genetic liabilities. The independent psychosocial influence of childhood trauma is unclear. This study examined such effects on adulthood depressive symptoms. Methods: Data were from the Health and Retirement Study. Trauma items included childhood physical abuse and parental substance abuse. Multinomial logit models examined genetic effects on stable and unstable reports. Linear growth models tested associations of stable trauma responses, genes, and their interaction with current depressive symptoms. Results: Genetic risk predicted both stable and unstable trauma reports. With genes controlled, stable responses were associated with life course variations but not late life change in depression. The exception was women’s physical abuse, which moderated genetic effects but had no independent influence. Discussion: Apparent gene-trauma correlations may be driven by flawed retrospective reports. Research is needed to distinguish true from artifactual genetic effects on other environmental factors and establish psychosocial implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207