MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032652373 · doi:10.1002/jts.20040

Co‐occurrence of posttraumatic stress disorder with positive psychotic symptoms in a nationally representative sample

2005· article· en· W2032652373 on OpenAlexaff
Jitender Sareen, Brian J. Cox, Renée D. Goodwin, Gordon J. G. Asmundson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Traumatic Stress · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityCIDIPsychiatryNational Comorbidity SurveyDistressOdds ratioPsychologyAnxiety disorderConfidence intervalPopulationClinical psychologyPosttraumatic stressMedicineAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and positive psychotic symptoms was examined in the National Comorbidity Survey (N = 5,877). The Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) was used to make DSM-III-R (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised; American Psychiatric Association, 1987) diagnoses. Posttraumatic stress disorder was found to be associated with an increased likelihood of endorsing one or more psychotic symptoms after adjusting for sociodemographics, psychiatric and medical comorbidity (odds ratios (OR) = 1.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.43-2.45; p < .001). The co-occurrence of PTSD with psychotic symptoms was marked by greater levels of severity (higher total number of PTSD symptoms, greater levels of comorbidity, and high distress) compared with PTSD alone. This is the first population-based study to investigate PTSD in relation to endorsement of positive psychotic symptoms, and a strong association was obtained.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations95
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Traumatic StressSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207