Experimental study on the effects of anxiety sensitivity and somatosensory amplification on the response to the 35% CO₂ challenge in abstinent smokers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between nicotine abstinence and panic onset is still not well understood and the role of catastrophic misinterpretation, as possible moderator or mediator of this relationship, is unknown. We tested whether nicotine abstinence influences the response to a CO₂ panic challenge and whether catastrophic misinterpretation (measured via the Anxiety Sensitivity [ASI] and the SomatoSensory Amplification Scale [SSAS]) exerts a moderating or mediating effect on the relationship between nicotine abstinence and panic. Eighty regular smokers underwent a 35% CO₂ challenge after the transdermal administration of nicotine or placebo. Physiological and psychological variables were measured at baseline, directly before and after the challenge. Fear reactivity to the challenge was similar in both conditions. ASI (post-Test Visual Analogous Scale of Fear: ΔR² = 0.043, p < .05) and SSAS (post-Test Visual Analogous Scale of Anxiety: ΔR² = 0.036, p < .05; post-Test Panic Symptom List: ΔR² = 0.035, p < .05) influenced anxiety as response to the challenge. We found no support for the moderational and the mediational hypotheses. The findings regarding fear reactivity when group status is considered partly confirm the literature. The positive findings observed for ASI and SSAS as factors influencing the response to the challenge, together with the lack of evidence for a moderational and a mediational hypothesis, confirm that anxiety sensitivity and somatosensory amplification are independent constructs and suggest that they directly influence the response to the challenge.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".