MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165655968 · doi:10.1016/j.ynstr.2021.100343

Molecular impacts of childhood abuse on the human brain

2021· review· en· W3165655968 on OpenAlexafffund
Pascal Ibrahim, Daniel Almeida, Corina Nagy, Gustavo Turecki

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Stress · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeglectBipolar disorderPsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Brain Structure and FunctionPsychological abuseMental healthPsychiatrySexual abuseCognitionNeuroscienceClinical psychologyMedicinePoison controlInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood abuse (CA) is a prevalent global health concern, increasing the risk of negative mental health outcomes later in life. In the literature, CA is commonly defined as physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, as well as neglect. Several mental disorders have been associated with CA, including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder, along with an increased risk of suicide. It is thought that traumatic life events occurring during childhood and adolescence may have a significant impact on essential brain functions, which may persist throughout adulthood. The interaction between the brain and the external environment can be mediated by epigenetic alterations in gene expression, and there is a growing body of evidence to show that such changes occur as a function of CA. Disruptions in the HPA axis, myelination, plasticity, and signaling have been identified in individuals with a history of CA. Understanding the molecular impact of CA on the brain is essential for the development of treatment and prevention measures. In this review, we will summarize studies that highlight the molecular changes associated with CA in the human brain, along with supporting evidence from peripheral studies and animal models. We will also discuss some of the limitations surrounding the study of CA and propose extracellular vesicles as a promising future approach in the field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of StressSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207