The long-term association between exposure to wartime bombing earlier in life and post-traumatic stress later in life among today's older Vietnamese population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This analysis examines the relationship between exposure to American wartime bombardments earlier in life and later-life PTSD among current surviving Vietnamese aged 59+. It also assesses whether the relationship varies by military status during the war - formal military, informal military, or civilian - and whether associations are explained by exposure to violence and malevolent conditions. Data link survey responses from the 2018 Vietnam Health and Aging Study to provincial-wide level bombing intensity using U.S. Department of Defense records from the Theater History of Operations Vietnam database. PTSD measured using nine items from the PTSD Checklist. Analyses employ multivariate logistic quantile regression. Findings examined for a sample of 2290 Vietnamese survivors and a subsample of 736 Vietnamese that moved at least once during wartime. Results show a robust and significant positive association between province-wide bombing intensity and later-life PTSD scores. Interaction effects indicate civilians have overall lower levels of PTSD than those that were in the formal or informal military, but the association between bombing and PTSD is stronger among civilians. Much of the association is a function of exposure to violence and less is a function of exposure to malevolent conditions. Findings confirm earlier studies that have shown severe deleterious impacts of war trauma, and arial bombardments particularly, on long-term psychological health, while extending extant literature to civilian populations living in Vietnam during intense aerial bombing episodes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".