Childhood adversity increases risk of psychotic experiences in patients with substance use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) increase the risk of psychotic experiences (PE), but little is known about heterogeneities of this association in different developmental stages, dimensions, or whether they are affected by substance use disorder (SUD). This study examines the association between different types of ACEs at various developmental stages and lifetime PE in patients with SUD in Chile. METHODS: We included 399 consenting adults in outpatient or residential SUD treatment programs. Sociodemographic data and information about PE and ACEs were obtained by trained clinical psychologists. RESULTS: Patients reporting PE experienced more ACEs compared to patients without PE (4.2 versus 3.4). They also experienced more complex adversities (41.8% versus 25.1%), had more psychiatric comorbidities (85% versus 70.4%), and reported using more substances (mean 4.5 versus 3.9). Adjusted association between ACEs and PE showed the highest OR for arrests (1.88), sexual abuse (1.81), alcohol abuse by parents (1.48), school exclusion (1.39), foster or residential care (18.3). CONCLUSION: Early exposure to ACEs is a risk factor for later PE among patients with SUD. Type of ACE and the period when they occurred is important, suggesting the existence of critical periods where the individual is more susceptible to adverse environmental stimuli.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".