MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030800556 · doi:10.1080/13607860701616499

Response variability of salivary cortisol among older adults under psychological stress

2008· article· en· W2030800556 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Préville, Steve Zarit, Elizabeth J. Susman, P. Boulenger, R. Lehoux

Bibliographic record

VenueAging & Mental Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeHôpital Charles-Le Moyne
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychological stressStress (linguistics)MedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a quasi-experimental design with repeated measures was used to compare anxious (n = 129) and nonanxious (n = 186) older adults on the cortisol secretion rate attributable to an experimental stressor. Our results support the hypothesis that a first-order longitudinal factor model appropriately describes the cortisol concentration in three saliva samples collected at two experimental times. The model tested explained between 82.6 and 98.0% of the variance in cortisol concentration of the respondent's saliva samples at T1, and between 55.4% and 78.4% at T2. In the nonanxious group ((State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) STAI < 42), the magnitude of the experiment-related cortisol reactivity was, respectively 51 and 33% higher than the respondent's baseline reactivity level at both T1 and T2. By contrast, in the anxious group (STAI >or= 42), our results showed no significant gradient in the magnitude of the cortisol reactivity at either time. This result was interpreted to be in agreement with the helplessness reaction hypothesis. These results suggest that salivary cortisol is a valid measure that is sensitive to experimental stress, and may therefore, be useful in examining physiological response to stress.

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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging & Mental HealthSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207