Intervening After Trauma: Child–Parent Psychotherapy Treatment Is Associated With Lower Pediatric Epigenetic Age Acceleration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early-life adversity increases the risk of health problems. Interventions supporting protective and responsive caregiving offer a promising approach to attenuating adversity-induced changes in stress-sensitive biomarkers. This study tested whether participation in an evidence-based dyadic psychosocial intervention, child–parent psychotherapy (CPP), was related to lower epigenetic age acceleration, a trauma-sensitive biomarker of accelerated biological aging that is associated with later health impairment, in a sample of children with trauma histories. Within this quasi-experimental, repeated-measures study, we examined epigenetic age acceleration at baseline and postintervention in a low-income sample of children receiving CPP treatment ( n = 45; age range = 2–6 years; 76% Latino) compared with a weighted, propensity-matched community-comparison sample ( n = 110; age range = 3–6 years; 40% Latino). Baseline epigenetic age acceleration was equivalent across groups. However, posttreatment, epigenetic age acceleration in the treatment group was lower than in the matched community sample. Findings highlight the potential for a dyadic psychosocial intervention to ameliorate accelerated biological aging in trauma-exposed children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".