MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006579973 · doi:10.2174/138161212803530934

Differences in Saccadic Eye Movements in Subjects at High and Low Risk for Panic Disorder

2012· article· en· W2006579973 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Zwanzger, Jacques Bradwejn, Julia Diemer, R. W. Marshall, Diana Koszycki

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSaccadic maskingPanic disorderPanicEye movementPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryNeuroscienceAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder (PD) has a strong genetic component showing high heritability rates and familial aggregation. Moreover, there is evidence for associations between parental PD and patterns of psychopathology. So far, little is known about possible endophenotypes representing premorbid vulnerability markers in high-risk subjects for PD. In the present study, we investigated saccadic eye movement (SEM) as an index of CNS inhibitory function in subjects at high risk for PD. METHODS: 132 healthy children at high and low familial risk for PD were included in the study. Basal SEM parameters were obtained using an electro-oculography (EOG) based system measuring peak saccadic eye velocity (pSEV), latency and accuracy. Moreover, with regard to self rating scales, state-trait-anxiety (STAI-C), childhood behavioral inhibition (CSRI), and anxiety sensitivity (CASI) were assessed. RESULTS: There was a significant overall difference for basal SEM parameters across groups as revealed by MANCOVA (F7,118=2.184, p=.040). A significant influence was found for the covariate age, while gender and puberty status had no influence on SEM. High-risk (HR) subjects showed significantly lower pSEV. Moreover, levels of state and trait anxiety were higher in HR children (F1=5.429, p=.021). DISCUSSION: In our sample, measurement of pSEV allowed discrimination between children at high and low risk for PD. Since these results argue for possible alterations of saccadic function in high risk subjects, differences in underlying neurobiological mechanisms might be discussed as a possible endophenotype of PD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207