Comorbidity of Phobic Disorders with Alcoholism in a Canadian Community Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relation between phobic disorders and alcoholism in a Canadian community sample. METHOD: Data came from the Mental Health Supplement of the Ontario Health Survey. The University of Michigan revision of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (UM-CIDI) was used to diagnose DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in 8116 Canadian respondents between ages 15 and 64 years. Since the cross-system agreement (ICD-10 and DSM-III-R or DSM-IV) on the diagnosis of alcohol abuse is much lower than that for alcohol dependence, we also examined a WHO category, "hazardous alcohol use." Logistic regression controlling for age and sex was used to determine odds ratios (ORs) for phobic disorders and alcohol-use diagnoses. RESULTS: Individuals with lifetime alcohol abuse or dependence had two- to threefold increased odds of having a phobic disorder. Simple phobia and social phobia with multiple fears were significantly associated (ORs 1.5 to 2) with hazardous alcohol use (which had a prevalence of approximately 10%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the early onset of most phobic disorders, the findings suggest that these are a risk factor for hazardous patterns of alcohol use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".