MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393187152 · doi:10.3390/socsci13040189

Impact of Sexual Abuse on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4393187152 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ana Carolina Alves, Maria Emília Leitão, Ana Isabel Sani, Diana Moreira

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaUniversidade do MinhoInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsSexual abuseTraumatic stressPsychopathologyPsychologyPsychological abuseChild sexual abusePsychiatryClinical psychologyChild abuseMental healthPoison controlInjury preventionMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child sexual abuse (CSA), the most common type of maltreatment, is any action of a sexual nature by one or more adults towards a minor without the minor’s consent. This abuse represents one of the most damaging forms of trauma, has a severe impact on mental health and psychopathology, and can lead to several disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD is characterized as a disorder that encompasses physical symptoms resulting from traumatic experiences that are experienced or witnessed by the victim. This systematic review aims to understand the impact of sexual abuse on post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents. Studies focusing on the relationship between these two variables were obtained through multiple databases. Of the 940 documents collected, 24 were retained for further analysis and the objectives, methodologies, results, and main conclusions were registered. One of the main conclusions was that the earlier the abuse starts and the more severe and long-lasting it is, the symptomatology of PTSD will be aggravated and remain in the long term.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial SciencesSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207