Age, Sex and Relationship Strengths: Internalizing Symptom Differences in Children and Youth Within a Clinical Sample.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Internalizing problems such as depression, anxiety and anhedonia are particularly problematic due to their covert nature. Due to their deleterious effects on psychological well-being, social connection and education, it is important to understand the development of internalizing problems and their unique contributors. Objectives: Examine whether internalizing symptoms vary by (i) age, and (ii) sex, and whether (iii) relationship strengths are associated with sex and internalizing symptoms. Method: Using a polynomial model with Tweedie distribution with log link, this study examined relationships for 18,701 clinically referred children and adolescents between 4 and 18 years of age assessed using the interRAI Child and Youth Mental Health assessment. Results: Internalizing symptoms reported by children and adolescents varied by age and sex. Sex differences in internalizing symptoms became prominent after about six years of age with female adolescents reporting higher levels when compared to male peers. An increase in relationship strengths corresponded with a decrease in internalizing symptoms for both sexes. However, the pattern depended on sex. In our sample, females required a greater number of relationship strengths to observe a decrease in internalizing symptoms. Conclusions: The current study illustrates a difference in internalizing symptoms between females and males with respect to age and relationship strengths. The results may have implications for prevention and intervention strategies geared towards internalizing symptoms for children and adolescents.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".