MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996772967 · doi:10.1097/psy.0b013e31817bb8e5

Anxious Temperament and Disease Progression at Diagnosis: The Case of Type 2 Diabetes

2008· article· en· W1996772967 on OpenAlexaff
Peter A. Hall, Michael James Coons, Michael Vallis

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychosomatic Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperamentBody mass indexDiabetes mellitusType 2 Diabetes MellitusAnxietyGlycated hemoglobinDiseaseMedicineClinical psychologyInternal medicineType 2 diabetesPsychologyPersonalityPsychiatryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between anxious temperament and disease progression at diagnosis for individuals with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A sample of 204 individuals, newly diagnosed with T2DM, completed the Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Scales (BIS/BAS) and provided an A1C reading. Regression analyses were used to predict A1C levels from individual differences in BIS and BAS. RESULTS: Individual differences in BIS were inversely related to A1C at diagnosis in the sample as a whole, and this association remained strong after controlling for demographic variables and body mass index. Most importantly, temperamentally anxious individuals had low A1C levels at diagnosis in all age groups, in contrast to their nonanxious counterparts who showed increasing A1C at diagnosis as a function of decreasing age. BAS scores were unrelated to A1C. CONCLUSIONS: Although older age is generally associated with lower disease progression at diagnosis, high BIS individuals show uniformly lower disease progression across all age groups. High levels of temperamental anxiety may facilitate early diagnosis of T2DM, particularly among younger individuals who are not subject to routine screening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychosomatic MedicineSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207