How do childhood conduct problems, callousness and anxiety relate to later offending and adult mental disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various combinations of childhood conduct problems, callous traits and anxiety may confer increased risk of offending, psychopathic traits and mental disorders. Knowledge of these outcomes in adulthood is limited. AIMS: To compare adult criminal convictions, psychopathy checklist scores and mental disorders between five groups of men, variously defined in childhood by: (1) callous traits, (2) conduct problems, (3) conduct problems and callous traits, (4) conduct problems and callous traits and anxiety or (5) developing typically. METHOD: Teachers rated conduct problems, callous traits and anxiety at ages 6, 10 and 12 years. Criminal convictions from age 12 to 24 were extracted from official records. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) and diagnostic interviews were completed at age 33. RESULTS: Relative to the typically developing group, the groups with conduct problems, with and without callous traits and anxiety, showed 5-fold elevations in risks of violent convictions and 3 to 4-fold elevations in risk for antisocial personality disorder, while the groups with conduct problems only and with conduct problems plus callous traits plus anxiety were at increased risk for borderline personality disorder. All risk groups obtained higher PCL-R total scores than the typically developing childhood group. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: It is widely accepted that childhood conduct problems in boys are associated with increased risks of criminal convictions and poorer mental health, but our findings suggest that teachers can identify different subgroups and these have different trajectories. As some subgroups were small, replication is recommended, but our findings offer preliminary support for trialling specific interventions for at risk boys.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".