The neuroanatomical bases of pedophilia and the importance of distinguishing genuine vs. acquired types: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurological cases of child sexual abuse (acquired pedophilia) are sometimes used as evidence for the neuroanatomical bases of pedophilia. However, these cases seem to represent a more general syndrome of impulsivity or hypersexuality than a true modification of sexual interests. Therefore, acquired pedophilia may not be adequate to investigate the neurological correlates of pedophilia. The main goal of this study was to systematically review cases of acquired pedophilia to explore the possibility that they are more closely associated with generalized behavioral impulsivity or hyperactivity than a late onset sexual interest toward children. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for SysteMAtic reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, 64 cases of acquired pedophilia were identified. All but one were men. As expected, the mean age of onset for acquired pedophilic behaviors was higher than 50-year-old (M = 52.8-y.-o., SD = 15.6), most cases committed various additional sexual and nonsexual impulsive acts, and only a minority (19%) showed premorbid pedophilic interests. Brain damage mostly involved basal fronto-temporal regions associated with sexual, but also impulsive behaviors. It is concluded that acquired pedophilia should not be used as evidence for the neurological bases of genuine pedophilia. Psychiatric diagnoses of pedophilic disorder would also benefit from adding an exclusion criterion based on neurological etiology. Future investigations are required to determine why acquired pedophilia is almost exclusively observed in men.
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 | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".