The psychological impact of terrorist attacks: examining a dose-response relationship between exposure to 9/11 and Axis I mental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested a dose-response relationship between exposure to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. However, this relationship has not been examined with other Axis I mental disorders. This study examined whether the incidence of Axis I mental disorders was associated with level of exposure to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. METHOD: Data came from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-2; N=34,653, ages 20+) collected between 2004 and 2005. This survey utilized a fully structured face-to-face interview to assess the presence of DSM-IV Axis I disorders since Wave 1 of the NESARC, collected between 2001 and 2002. Multiple logistic regression analyses were employed to examine the relationship between the level of exposure to 9/11 and the prevalence of Axis I disorders since Wave 1. RESULTS: In adjusted models, higher levels of exposure increased the odds of having new onset PTSD, any anxiety disorder, and any mental disorder. Compared to participants who were not exposed to 9/11, those who directly experienced 9/11 had six times the odds of having PTSD, 2.5 times the odds of having any anxiety disorder, and nearly twice the odds of having any mental disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that there is a dose-response relationship between level of exposure to the 9/11 attacks and PTSD. Furthermore, higher levels of exposure increase the odds of having any anxiety disorder and any Axis I mental disorder.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".