A Systematic Review of Childhood Adversity and Executive Functions Outcomes among Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) is linked to disruptions in typical neurodevelopment of brain structures and functioning, including changes in executive functions. Although the relationships among ACEs, executive functions, and psychopathology are well documented in pediatric samples, a systematic review is needed to examine these relationships in adulthood. METHOD: A systematic review examining the link between ACEs and executive functions among adult clinical and nonclinical samples was conducted across 33 scientific and grey literature databases. Among reviewed studies, 17 sources met review criteria, with 11 involving clinical samples and six involving nonclinical samples. RESULTS: Among clinical samples, evidence suggested that ACEs increased risk for executive function difficulties among those diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and those experiencing a first episode of psychosis, however not within those diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Among nonclinical samples, executive function difficulties associated with ACEs were found among those in early and middle adulthood. Not all retrieved sources showed consistent findings, and two studies described better executive function outcomes among those who experienced childhood sexual abuse and emotional abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Executive function difficulties associated with ACEs appear to persist into adulthood, though inconsistently. Future research may further explore distinct differences among specific ACEs and executive function difficulties to further inform ongoing prevention and treatment efforts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".