Cognitive outcomes of children who have experienced complex trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to assess cognitive outcomes of children who have experienced complex trauma in comparison to children who have not, and to test the effect of potential moderating factors. INTRODUCTION: A relatively high proportion of children have experienced complex trauma, which can lead to negative consequences on various aspects of development, including cognitive functions. Studies and reviews have documented cognitive outcomes of children who have experienced complex trauma, but with conflicting results. Additionally, previous reviews only included few longitudinal studies. Thus, the short- and long-term effects of complex trauma on cognitive functions and the causal relationships between complex trauma and cognitive functions remain unclear; however, this information could help in the targeting of interventions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider primary prospective longitudinal studies that have assessed cognitive functions in children who have experienced complex trauma compared to children not exposed to a traumatic event. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for primary studies: APA PsycNET, PubMed Central, ERIC, CINAHL and Embase. Gray literature will also be searched. Study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction will be conducted by two independent evaluators. Standard meta-analysis as well as a longitudinal meta-analysis will be performed, based on the general linear mixed model, to take into account previous cognitive functioning. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis will be undertaken to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, and a funnel plot will be generated to visually explore reporting bias. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019121610.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 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".