A population-based family study of DSM-III generalized anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis provides evidence that generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is familial. However, two of the key studies relied on subjects who were self-selected or recruited from the clinic setting, thereby limiting generalizability. METHOD: We conducted a family study of GAD in which probands and controls came from a community sample originally enrolled in a prevalence study in Edmonton, Canada. One hundred and sixty probands, 764 controls and 2386 first-degree relatives (FDRs) were interviewed using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS); lifetime diagnoses were made according to DSM-III criteria without exclusions. Logistic regression analysis was performed with GAD (in a proband) as the 'exposure', and GAD in an FDR as the 'outcome'. Several analytic strategies were used to control for potential confounding by major depressive disorder (MDD) and several anxiety disorders (panic disorder, phobic disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder). RESULTS: The odds ratios for the association between GAD in a proband and GAD in an FDR were in the range 1.4-1.8 when the entire FDR sample was analysed, and in the range 2.1-2.8 when we restricted to FDRs who were children of probands and controls. CONCLUSION: In the community setting, GAD exhibits mild to moderate familial aggregation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".