MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395675639 · doi:10.1089/neu.2023.0440

A Four-Country Study of Strangulation-Related Alterations in Consciousness in Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence: Co-Occurrence with Traumatic Brain Injuries and Measures of Psychological Distress

2024· article· en· W4395675639 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shambhu Prasad Adhikari, Julia C. Daugherty, Nathalia Quiroz Molinares, Naomi Maldonado-Rodriguez, Colin Wallace, Jonathan D. Smirl, Miguel Pérez-Garcı́a, Carlos José Reyes, Natalia Hidalgo‐Ruzzante, Paul van Donkelaar, Eve M. Valera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryOkanagan CollegeOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversidad de GranadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsDomestic violencePsychological distressIntimate partnerInjury preventionSuicide preventionPoison controlPsychologyOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsClinical psychologyPsychiatryDistressTraumatic brain injuryYoung adultMedicineMedical emergencyMental healthDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At least one in three women experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime. The most commonly sustained IPV-related brain injuries include strangulation-related alterations in consciousness (S-AICs) and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Moreover, survivors of IPV-related S-AICs and/or TBIs often demonstrate psychological distress such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. However, the co-occurrence of S-AICs and TBIs, and whether such TBIs may be moderate to severe, has not been systematically examined, and most data have been collected from women in North America. The purpose of this study was to examine the co-occurrence of IPV-related S-AICs and TBIs across a range of geographical locations and to determine the extent to which these S-AICs are related to psychological distress. Women who had experienced physical IPV ( n = 213) were included in this secondary analysis of retrospectively collected data across four countries (Canada, the United States, Spain, and Colombia). The Brain Injury Severity Assessment (BISA) was used to assess IPV-related BI across all sites. Because various questionnaires were employed to assess levels of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder at each site, we created a standardized composite score by converting raw scores into Z -scores for analysis. Mann–Whitney U tests and chi-square tests were conducted to examine differences between women with and without experience of S-AICs and to discover if there was a relationship between the occurrence of S-AICs and TBIs. Analysis of variance and analysis of covariance (to control for the potential confounding effects of age, education, and non IPV-related TBI) were used to compare levels of psychological distress in women who had or had not experienced S-AICs. Approximately, 67% of women sustained at least one IPV-related BI (i.e., TBI and/or S-AIC). In a subsample of women who sustained at least one IPV-related BI, approximately 37% sustained both S-AICs and TBIs, 2% sustained only S-AICs (with no TBIs), and 61% sustained TBIs exclusively (with no S-AICs). Furthermore, women who had sustained S-AICs (with or without a TBI) were more likely to have experienced a moderate-to-severe BI than those who had not sustained an S-AIC (BISA severity subscale: U = 3939, p = 0.006). In addition, women who experienced S-AICs (with or without a TBI) reported higher levels of psychological distress compared with women who never experienced S-AICs, irrespective of whether they occurred once or multiple times. These data underscore the importance of assessing for S-AIC in women who have experienced IPV and when present, to also assess for TBIs and the presence of psychological distress. Unfortunately, there were methodological differences across sites precluding cross-site comparisons. Nonetheless, data were collected across four culturally and geographically diverse countries and, therefore, highlight IPV-related BIs as a global issue that needs to be aggressively studied with policies established and then implemented to address findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207