ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Analysis of factors influencing the assessment of sexual self-defense capacity in individuals with mental disorders.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: China's Sexual Self-Defense Capacity (SSDC) assessment evaluates mentally disordered females' ability to protect sexual rights, critically impacting rape adjudication. Despite 3-5× higher sexual assault risk in this population, key SSDC impairment predictors-Intellectual Level (FSIQ/VIQ/PIQ) and Activities of Daily Living (ADL)-face standardization challenges due to regional variations in assessment tools/thresholds. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 398 forensic SSDC cases (2020-2024) from five Chinese institutions, following national guidelines. Univariate, correlation, regression, ROC, and combined modeling analyses identified predictors. Results: (1) ADL score exerted the strongest effect on CSSAS, followed by FSIQ. (2) Critical thresholds established: Retained SSDC (CSSAS score≥21): ADL score ≤ 22.5 or FSIQ≥66.5; Diminished SSDC score(7≤CSSAS<21): 22.5<ADL score ≤ 31.5 or 53.5≤FSIQ<66.5; Absent SSDC (CSSAS score<7): ADL score>31.5 or FSIQ<53.5(3) Combined model (ADL score+FSIQ) achieved higher AUC than single factors. Conclusion: (1) Both ADL and FSIQ are significant factors influencing SSDC. (2) ADL demonstrates superior predictive efficacy compared to FSIQ. (3) The combined predictive model (ADL + FSIQ) outperforms the use of FSIQ alone. (4) The predictive efficacy of the combined ADL-FSIQ model failed to exceed that of the ADL-only model. (5) The comprehensive use of ADL and FSIQ assessments can effectively improve the accuracy of SSDC evaluation in forensic psychiatric expertise, facilitating rape identification and sentencing. It also helps law enforcement preliminarily judge the SSDC of involved individuals, guide targeted criminal investigations, and initiate forensic procedures promptly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.