Different Pathways into Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia and Specific Phobia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In light of the ongoing debate whether agoraphobia [AG] should be viewed as a severe phobic disorder similar to specific phobia [SPE] or as a complication of panic disorder [PD] we aim to study the vulnerability structure of PD, AG and SPE. Methods: 3021 14-24 year-olds from the general population were followed-up over 10 years. DSM-IV syndromes were assessed via computerized M-CIDI interview and vulnerability factors via questionnaires. Associations were assessed with odds ratios from logistic regression. Latent class analysis (LCA) regressed on vulnerability factors was used to derive classes that underlie panic and phobic syndromes and to assess their associations with vulnerability factors. Results: 1. Vulnerability patterns were largely similar between PD, AG and SPE. 2. The LCA resulted in a best fitting model with 4 classes: a healthy class, a class with moderate frequency of phobias without PD, a class characterized by PD and AG and moderate frequency of SPE (PDAG class) and one class characterized by high frequency of AG and SPE situational type and lower frequency of PD (AGSIT class). 3. All classes showed different associations with multiple vulnerability measures. Subjects in the PDAG class reported less SPE in parents (OR=0.2; 95% CI=0.0-0.6) and older onset-age of any psychopathology (OR=2.0; 95% CI=1.07-3.6) than the AGSIT class. Discussion: We found indications for separate latent classes underlying PD and phobias that were characterized by different vulnerability factors. We interprete the different classes as different vulnerability clusters and evidence of multiple pathways leading to panic and phobias.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".