MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133768753 · doi:10.47363/jmcn/2025(6)213

Treating Adolescent Sexual Victimization: A Concise Review of Epidemiology, Neurobiological Consequences, and Evidence Based Interventions

2025· article· W7133768753 on OpenAlexaff
Sumaiya Bente Jalil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical & Clinical Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionEvidence-based practiceCognitionEye movement desensitization and reprocessingNarrative reviewPublic healthCognitive behavioral therapyCognitive restructuringDesensitization (medicine)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual victimization of adolescents represents a critical public health concern with particularly elevated prevalence in low- and middle-income countries including Bangladesh. This narrative review synthesizes evidence on epidemiology, neurobiological mechanisms, and evidence-based treatments for adolescent sexual victimization. Global prevalence ranges from 3-41.5%, with girls disproportionately affected. The review covers Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) as primary evidence-based psychotherapies, neurobiological changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and contextual factors unique to Bangladesh including legal gaps, stigma, and limitedservice infrastructure. Recommendations address legal reforms, institutional strengthening, and community awareness programs essential for effective response in resource-limited settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical & Clinical NursingSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207