Cognitive Outcomes of Children With Complex Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Longitudinal Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal studies have shown that children with complex trauma (i.e., exposure to multiple or repeated traumatic events of an interpersonal nature) have poorer cognitive outcomes later in life than children without complex trauma. This association may be moderated by the timing of the trauma, which may explain, in part, some heterogeneity in the findings reported across previous investigations. The objective of the systematic review and meta-analyses was to compare the cognitive outcomes of children with complex trauma and controls and to explore whether the timing of trauma (i.e., its onset and recency) moderated this association. Electronic databases (APA PsycNET, Pubmed Central, ERIC, CINAHL, Embase) and gray literature were systematically searched. To be included, studies had to (1) have a longitudinal design, (2) comprise children with complex trauma and controls, and (3) include a cognitive assessment. Thirteen studies were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted to compare children with complex trauma and controls, while subgroup analyses and meta-regressions explored the impact of potential moderators. Children with complex trauma had poorer overall cognitive functioning than controls, and the timing of trauma (early onset and, to a greater extent, recency of trauma) moderated this association. Thus, findings suggest that children with complex trauma are at risk of cognitive difficulties quickly after trauma exposure. As such, systematic neuropsychological assessment and interventions supporting the optimal development of cognitive functioning among children with complex trauma should be investigated to determine whether prompt interventions lead to better cognitive functioning.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".