Objective psychological measurement and clinical assessment of anxiety in adverse drug reactions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A confounding factor in the diagnosis of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the psychological state of the patient. Patients with underlying anxiety and related disorders may present with psychogenic reactions, which involve physiologic responses originating from psychological, rather than organic factors. OBJECTIVE: To examine the contribution of anxiety and related disorders to adverse drug events. METHODS: Participants from an adverse drug reaction clinic completed the Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-40), a 40-item questionnaire consisting of six subscales: anxiety, depression, dissociation, sexual abuse trauma index (SATI), sexual problems, and sleep disturbance. Physicians assessed the likelihood that adverse events were due to anxiety or drug(s) by providing an anxiety score (0 to 10) and an ADR score (0 to 10), respectively, for each participant. RESULTS: Patients clinically assessed as having "high anxiety" (anxiety score 7-10 and ADR score 0-3; n = 11) scored higher than patients clinically assessed as having a "true ADR" (anxiety score 0-3 and ADR score 7-10; n = 19) on the TSC-40 total (P = 0.006) as well as anxiety (P = 0.012), depression (P = 0.007), and SATI subscales (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to use a validated psychological measurement to indicate that a substantial percentage of reported adverse drug events may in fact be a manifestation of underlying anxiety and/or related disorders. We suggest that mechanisms of symptom generation may be analogous to those operative in idiopathic environmental intolerance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".