Early adverse stress and depression severity: A pilot exploration of mediating psychological mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the associations between early adverse stress, attachment insecurity in adulthood (anxious and avoidant), pathological personality styles (self-criticism and dependency), difficulties in emotion regulation, and depression severity. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 178 outpatients diagnosed with major depression in Santiago, Chile. Participants filled the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire Short Form, the Experience in Close Relationships Scale, the Depressive Experience Questionnaire, the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item. Full-information maximum likelihood path analyses with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals were conducted. RESULTS: Anxious attachment in adulthood and self-criticism mediated the association between early adverse stress and depression severity through their effects on difficulties in emotion regulation. Early adverse stress was not associated with avoidant attachment in adulthood and dependency; these variables were indirectly associated with depression severity. Difficulties in emotion regulation were exclusively directly related to depression severity, mediating the effects of the preceding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings propose an integrative model for psychological mechanisms mediating between early adverse stress and depression. Difficulties in emotion regulation should be considered when treating adults with depression exposed to early adverse stress. The contribution of specific types of early adverse stressors and difficulties in emotion regulation should be further explored.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".