MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972845183 · doi:10.1310/sci1803-253

Risk Factors for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury

2012· article· en· W1972845183 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Otis, André Marchand, Frédérique Courtois

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePosttraumatic stressPsychological interventionClinical psychologyPsychiatryRehabilitationSpinal cord injuryRisk factorPhysical therapySpinal cordInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Many of the events that cause spinal cord injury (SCI) are traumatic events that can result in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It therefore appears that most persons with SCI are at risk for developing PTSD. This study retrospectively examined risk factors for PTSD symptoms in a sample of 71 persons with SCI. METHOD: The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV was used to assess full and partial PTSD diagnoses. Self-administered questionnaires were used to measure potential risk factors. RESULTS: Results indicated that 11% of the participants met the criteria for full PTSD, and an additional 20% met the criteria for partial PTSD at some point after their SCI. Hierarchical linear regression analyses revealed that trauma history, peritraumatic reactions, and intolerance of uncertainty predicted the number of PTSD symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of trauma history, peritraumatic reactions, and intolerance of uncertainty in the development of PTSD symptoms. Patients at risk for PTSD should be identified early in the rehabilitation process and could benefit from psychological interventions with the aim of preventing PTSD development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury RehabilitationSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207