The Impact of Non-Criterion A Traumas in Intimate Relationships on Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder necessitates exposure to a traumatic event as defined by DSM-5-TR Criterion A. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that experiences not meeting Criterion A stressor definitions, specifically related to intimate relationships (e.g., psychological abuse) can also elicit clinically significant posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). However, the literature examining the unique role of non-Criterion A intimate relationship stressors on PTSS is sparse. This systematic review synthesized the literature examining the influence of non-Criterion A intimate relationship stressors on PTSS. Electronic searches of three databases (i.e., PsychInfo, Scopus, and PubMed) identified 3257 articles which underwent title and abstract screening and, if potentially eligible, full-text review. Nine articles met inclusion criteria; four of which examined PTSS after a conflict in a relationship and/or divorce, two studies focused on infidelity, and three studies focused on partner psychological abuse in an intimate relationship. Results revealed that relationship conflict and divorce, infidelity, and psychological abuse can lead to clinically significant PTSS, however, these findings were not consistent across all studies. Findings reveal considerable variability in the frequency and severity of PTSS following non-Criterion A intimate relationship stressors that is in line with the variability found in Criterion A-exposed samples. Nevertheless, given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed. Understanding the impact of these stressors may have important implications for diagnostic and treatment considerations and will provide valuable insights for our understanding of the PTSD construct in its entirety.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".