Effects of sexual assault vs. other traumatic experiences on emotional and cannabis use outcomes in regular cannabis users with trauma histories: moderation by gender?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: While sexual assault may have particularly adverse emotional effects compared with other forms of trauma, it remains unclear which emotional outcome dimensions are impacted, whether cannabis outcomes are similarly impacted, and whether gender differences exist in sexual assault's links with these outcomes. Methods: age = 33.1) completed standardized measures of demographics, trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress (PTS) and depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and cannabis outcomes (frequency, medicinal prescription, motives, and craving). Results: = 39)] and logistic regression revealed that sexual assault survivors scored higher than other trauma survivors on re-experiencing and hyperarousal PTS symptoms (DSM-5 Clusters B and E), cognitive depressive symptoms, hopelessness, cannabis use frequency, medicinal cannabis prescription, cannabis use to cope with psychological symptoms, and compulsivity craving; and lower on social and enhancement cannabis use motives. In terms of gender main effects, women scored higher than men on cannabis use to cope with negative emotions. In terms of interactions for PTS Cluster D symptoms (negative alterations in mood/cognitions), among men only, sexual assault survivors scored higher than other trauma survivors; and for cannabis enhancement motives and purposefulness cannabis craving, among sexual assault survivors only, women scored higher than men. Discussion: Across many different trauma, women survivors' use of cannabis to cope with negative affect should be a specific therapeutic focus. Moreover, we identified specific emotional and cannabis use outcomes that should be of specific clinical concern among sexual assault survivors regardless of gender. Finally, in terms of gender differences of clinical interest among sexual assault survivors, while PTS Cluster D symptoms should be specific treatment targets in men, cannabis enhancement motives and purposefulness craving should be treatment targets in women.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".