MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1570392141

Mise à jour dans le traitement des troubles anxieux

2007· article· fr· W1570392141 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean-Pierre Bernier, Isabelle Simard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Saint-Sacrement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume Objectif : Discuter de la place des traitements pharmacologiques dans les troubles anxieux les plus frequents, soit le trouble d’anxiete generalise, le trouble panique et l’anxiete sociale. Source des donnees : Les lignes directrices de l’Association des psychiatres du Canada publiees en juillet 2006 ont ete revisees. Une recherche orientee sur le traitement des troubles anxieux a egalement ete effectuee dans Medline sur une periode allant de 1995 a 2006, en utilisant les mots cles suivants : anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social phobia , antidepressant, benzodiazepine. Analyse de donnees : Le traitement de l’anxiete peut etre complexe. Il necessite un diagnostic approprie, et le choix de la therapie repose sur les facteurs de risque du patient, ses antecedents et la presence de comorbidites. Il importe de bien soulager les patients atteints puisque, de par leur nature invalidante, ces troubles ont un impact majeur sur leur qualite de vie. Apres avoir aborde la classification et l’etiologie de l’anxiete, nous mettrons en lumiere les lignes directrices de traitement pour ces differents troubles anxieux, en precisant la place de chacune des options therapeutiques, la duree de traitement et les medicaments a eviter. L’utilisation des benzodiazepines sera egalement traitee et leur place dans la therapie sera precisee. Conclusion : Les troubles anxieux sont parmi les troubles mentaux les plus repandus. Un diagnostic approprie est tres important, puisque le choix d’un medicament devra etre fait en fonction du trouble d’anxiete presente par le patient. Des etudes futures devraient guider le developpement de nouvelles approches therapeutiques et preciser la duree optimale de la therapie. Abstract Objective: To discuss the role of the different pharmacological options available for the treatment of the more common anxiety disorders (social phobia and panic disorder). Data source: Guidelines published in July 2006 by the Canadian Psychiatric Association were revised. A literature review focusing on anxiety disorders was done using Medline, covering the period of 1995 to 2006, using the following key words: anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social phobia, antidepressant, benzodiazepine. Data analysis: The treatment of anxiety can be complex. It requires an appropriate diagnosis, and the choice of therapy varies as a function of patient risk factors, medical history and presence of co-morbidities. It is important to provide relief to these patients because anxiety disorders can have a major impact on quality of life. After describing the classification and etiology of anxiety, we will discuss the guidelines for the treatment of the different anxiety disorders, focusing on the role of the different pharmacological options, on duration of treatment, and on medication to avoid. The role and the use of benzodiazepines will also be discussed. Conclusion: Anxiety disorders are some of the more common mental disorders. An appropriate diagnosis is very important in that the choice of medication is made as a function of the particular anxiety disorder the patient presents. Further studies should focus on new therapeutic options and on determining the optimal duration of treatment. Key words: anxiety disorders; generalized anxiety disorder; panic disorder; social phobia; pharmacological treatment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→