Associations between childhood adversity, cognitive schemas and attenuated psychotic symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Childhood Adversity (CA) is strongly linked to psychotic-like symptoms across the clinical spectrum, though the mechanisms underlying these associations remain poorly understood. Negative cognitive schemas are associated with both CA exposure and psychotic symptoms, highlighting the possibility that cognitive schemas may be a key risk pathway. The purpose of this study was to determine whether negative cognitive schemas mediate the association between CA and specific attenuated psychotic symptoms in a large sample of clinical-high risk youth. Given the variability in experiences that encompass CA (eg, abuse, neglect and poverty) and attenuated psychotic symptoms (eg, suspiciousness and perceptual abnormalities), we also tested whether these associations differ by CA type (threat vs deprivation) and attenuated positive psychotic symptom domain. METHODS: Data were collected from 531 clinical-high risk youth between 12 and 35 years of age (mean = 18.80, SD = 4.21) who completed a clinical assessment that included the Structured Interview of Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS), Childhood Trauma and Abuse scale and questionnaires on cognitive schemas and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: No direct effects of threat or deprivation exposure on any of the psychotic symptom domains were found. However, there was a unique indirect effect of threat, but not deprivation, on delusional thinking and suspiciousness through negative cognitive schemas about others. CONCLUSION: Cognitive vulnerability in the form of negative schemas about others may be one mechanism linking childhood threat experiences and attenuated psychotic symptoms. The results underscore the importance of targeting negative schemas in interventions to mitigate psychosis risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".