Relation of Non-Suicidal Self-Harm to Emotion Regulation and Alexithymia in Sexually Abused Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Globally, children are abused sexually. It physically and mentally strains society. Abusers can develop eating problems and non-suicidal self-harm. Emotion regulation links purging, NSSI, and abusive situations. We examined 80 13-20-year-olds, 62.5% of whom had CSA, and 30 healthy controls. Victims were given the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, an eating disorders clinical interview, the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale to assess emotion dysregulation, the Self-punishment Scale to assess NSSI, the Mini-Kid for children under 18 and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID I) for those 18 and older. 62.5 percent have CSA. CSA was connected to emotional dysregulation. Alexithymia is connected with problems describing and identifying feelings and outside oriented thinking. CSA patients exhibited severe self-punishment symptoms, greater than controls. Kids and teens often have CSA. OBJECTIVES: to look into the link between CSA and NSSI, as well as Alexithymia, emotional eating, and emotion dysregulation. METHODS: We interviewed 80 mental outpatients from October to February 2019. 30% of healthy controls have CSA. Participants were 10–24-year-olds without PTSD or ASD. Mini-Kid is a 10- to 18-year-old neuropsychiatric interview (Sheehan et al., 1998), Self-injury scale measures non-suicidal self-harm (NSSI), Problems (DERS; Bjureberg et al., 2016) TORONTO ALEXITHYMIA QUESTIONNAIRE (Bagby et al., 1994). The Eating disorders clinical interview (Kutlesic et al., 1998) RESULTS: [Table: see text] CONCLUSIONS: CSA survivors had higher rates of self-injury, emotional eating, alexithymia, and emotional dysregulation than healthy controls. CSA victims should be evaluated for non-self-injury, emotional dysregulation, and emotional eating. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: None Declared
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".