MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402605052 · doi:10.1080/10538712.2024.2403999

Somatic Problems in Children Disclosing Sexual Abuse: The Mediating Role of Alexithymia and Dissociation

2024· article· en· W4402605052 on OpenAlexafffund
Valéry Dubé, Laetitia Mélissande Amédée, Hina F. Raza, Martine Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Sexual Abuse · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyChild sexual abuseClinical psychologySexual abuseHeadachesPsychological interventionDissociation (chemistry)PsychiatryPoison controlMedicineInjury preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is linked to heightened levels of medically unexplained symptoms. Research indicates that victims of CSA display alexithymia and dissociation symptoms. Alexithymia and dissociation may potentially contribute to developing somatic complaints in CSA victims. They represent mechanisms through which psychological distress is avoided and could then manifest as physical symptoms like somatic problems (e.g. headaches, nausea, stomachache, etc.). This study aimed to investigate if alexithymia and dissociation are mechanisms explaining the link between CSA and somatic complaints. The sample included 245 children who had disclosed child sexual abuse and 100 non-abused children aged 6-12 years old. Results of a sequential mediation model revealed that the CSA-somatic complaints relationship was mediated by alexithymia and dissociation. This study suggests that intense negative emotion leads children to focus on external stimuli to reduce psychological suffering. To mitigate somatic problems in victims of CSA, treatment should target overregulation of affect, namely alexithymia, and dissociation. In the long term, this could prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing and delay in appropriate interventions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Sexual AbuseSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207