Frequency of fainting, vomiting and incontinence in panic disorder: A descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Little is known about how often individuals with panic disorder (PD) actually experience the physical catastrophes that they fear (e.g., fainting, vomiting, incontinence). This study investigated the frequency of such events in PD and the circumstances under which they occur. A systematic chart review of 574 consecutive patients diagnosed with PD was completed. Nineteen out of 35 patients who had previously reported a history of fainting, vomiting or incontinence (i.e., loss of bowel or bladder control) during a panic attack were interviewed by telephone. Of this sample, 11 confirmed a history of fainting, four confirmed a history of vomiting and four confirmed a history of incontinence during at least one previous panic attack. Four of these individuals reported more than one type of event and several others reported that they had only come close to experiencing these feared events. Participants also reported on the timing of these events (relative to their panic attacks), the circumstances under which the events occurred, as well as possible causes and outcomes of the events. Although rare, catastrophic events such as fainting, vomiting and incontinence appear to occur in the context of panic attacks for some individuals. The implications for cognitive behavioural treatment of PD are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".