Psychopathology and cognitive deficits in young people exposed to complex trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Complex traumas are traumatic experiences that involve multiple interpersonal threats during childhood or adolescence, such as repeated abuse. This type of trauma is hypothesized to lead to more severe psychopathology and poorer cognitive function than other non-complex traumas, such as road traffic accidents. However, empirical testing of this hypothesis has been limited to clinical or convenience samples and cross-sectional designs. To better understand this topic, we aimed to investigate psychopathology and cognitive function in young people exposed to complex, non-complex, or no trauma from a population-representative longitudinal cohort, and to consider the role of pre-existing vulnerabilities. Method Participants were from the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study, a population-representative birth-cohort of 2,232 children born in England and Wales in 1994-95. At age 18 years (93% participation), we assessed lifetime exposure to complex and non-complex trauma. We also assessed past-year psychopathology including general psychopathology ‘p’ and several psychiatric disorders, as well as current cognitive function including IQ, executive function, and processing speed. Additionally, we prospectively assessed early childhood vulnerabilities including internalizing and externalizing symptoms at age 5, IQ at age 5, family history of mental illness, family socioeconomic status, and sex. Result We found that participants who had been exposed to complex trauma had more severe psychopathology and poorer cognitive function across wide-ranging measures at age 18, compared to both trauma-unexposed participants and those exposed to non-complex trauma. Early childhood vulnerabilities had an important role in these presentations, as they predicted risk of later complex trauma exposure, and largely explained associations of complex trauma with cognitive deficits, but not with psychopathology. Conclusion By conflating complex and non-complex traumas, current research and clinical practice under-estimate the severity of psychopathology and cognitive deficits linked with complex trauma, as well as the role of pre-existing vulnerabilities. A better understanding of the mental health needs of people exposed to complex trauma and underlying mechanisms could inform the development of new effective interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".