Sexual assault and psychosis in two large general population samples: Is childhood and adolescence a developmental window of sensitivity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has shown a strong relationship between psychosis and sexual assault. Theories on developmental trauma as a causal factor for psychosis suggest that exposure to sexual trauma in childhood would have a stronger association with psychosis than sexual trauma in adulthood. We hypothesized that exposure to sexual trauma earlier in childhood and adolescence would be more strongly associated with hallucinations, delusional beliefs and psychotic disorder than sexual trauma that occurred later in life. METHODS: Using the 2007 and 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys (N = 14,949) we calculated the prevalence of sexual assault, hallucinations, delusional beliefs, and psychotic disorder. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between age of exposure to sexual assault (first exposure <16 vs first exposure ≥16) and odds of hallucinations, delusions, and psychotic disorder. RESULTS: Sexual assault at any age was associated with an increased odds of hallucinations (aOR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.63-2.46), delusional beliefs (aOR = 2.55, 95%CI = 2.24-2.89) and psychotic disorder (aOR = 5.28, 95%CI = 3.59-7.76). There was no significant difference, however, in the prevalence of hallucinations, delusional beliefs or psychotic disorders in individuals first exposed to sexual assault <16 and individuals first exposed ≥16. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find evidence that exposure to sexual assault in childhood and adolescence was more strongly associated with hallucinations, delusional beliefs or psychotic disorder than exposure to sexual assault age >16. Our findings do not support the idea that childhood and adolescence are uniquely sensitive periods for the emergence of psychotic experiences or psychotic disorder in relation to sexual trauma.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".