MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W137637654 · doi:10.1177/070674370705200804

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder is Overloaded

2007· article· en· W137637654 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Harold Merskey, August Piper

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrritabilityPsychologyFeelingPsychiatryTraumatic stressPosttraumatic stressPsychoanalysisAnxietySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Valid disorders are subject to the disease of inflation. Any solid, established diagnosis that is popular and appealing risks overuse and becomes overloaded with excess features. Such is the fate of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Once a well-defined, well-characterized condition, it has currently expanded from the consequences of terrifying battles to the outcome of purported abuse in childhood. The alleged abuse is sometimes recovered and ranges from forgotten forbidden touching to the most serious and harmful invasion of the bodies and minds of children. It is time to call a halt to the unscientific expansion of PTSD. It harms patients to give them the wrong diagnosis with the wrong assumptions. Modern descriptions of PTSD date from the time of the Russo-Japanese War ( 1904-1905), in which early versions of high-explosive shells were used. These differed from cannonballs and other projectiles in that blasts occurred on impact, producing additional damage to bodies and structures and scattering shrapnel. Contemporary reports recognized a condition amounting to a traumatic war neurosis, marked by confusional states, brief excitement and irritability, fearfulness, and emotional instability. The typical and enduring pattern was further identified in France following explosions of the naval ships Iena and Liberte in Toulon dockyard in 1907 and 1911. After eliminating cases in which organic factors might have been relevant, Hesnard' recorded posttraumatic psychological responses including an initial state of semisomnambulism, automatic mental activity, absorption in some trivial occupation (for example, saving some garment), a strange lucidity or increased clarity, a feeling of exaltation, and a period of anterograde amnesia. The dockyard rescuers also showed symptoms of disturbance for several weeks, including recapitulation of the scene, terrifying dreams, diffuse anxiety, fatigue, and various minor phobias. This knowledge of emotional change after explosions, quickly abstracted in English, became part of the contemporary climate of ideas.1,2 In the First World War, soldiers who became panic-stricken and ran away, or who were too fearful to go into battle, were liable to be executed; more than 300 men in the British forces were shot for cowardice. Thus to complain of anxiety was unacceptable, although, as the war progressed, it was recognized that soldiers who had fought most bravely might lose their nerve after increased exposure to risk-even those decorated for exceptional gallantry might break down with anxiety. Many individuals who were not overtly wounded by explosive blasts but were nearby when they occurred developed paralysis, difficulty with limbs, or other symptoms, which came to be recognized as hysteria. The idea that symptoms were produced by the blast of high explosives caused the condition to be labelled shell shock. The term was applied to individuals who developed symptoms such as paralysis, amnesias, deafness, and visual difficulties. These symptoms, grafted onto the basic anxiety response, served a social and cultural purpose, enabling the individual to retreat from battle with dignity and-for a short while-sympathy. Soon the numbers of individuals given the diagnosis grew too large to be accommodated by armies that needed to keep their soldiers fighting. Diagnoses changed. After shell shock, the ultimate pattern of chronic anxiety related to particular events was recognized fairly well as combat neurosis and then, later, as posttraumatic stress disorder.2 Through the rest of the First World War and during the second World War, a stunned, semiautomatic victim with a pattern of characteristic anxiety symptoms relating to the event was treated with some degree of insight and support, and the pattern was recognized under various terms such as combat neurosis. Later, the same notion-rediscovered in Vietnam-was captured in both DSM-IV and ICD-10 descriptions. Not all individuals who experience stress or trauma, whether in battle or in civilian life, and who develop symptoms, necessarily show the typical anxiety pattern. …

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207