The GAD-7 scale was accurate for diagnosing generalised anxiety disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalised anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1092–7. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the diagnostic accuracy of the Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 scale? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Mental health ★★★★★★☆ Psychiatry ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: blinded comparison of the GAD-7 scale with GAD criteria from the DSM-IV . ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Setting: 13 family practices and 2 internal medicine clinics in the US. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Patients: a random sample of 965 out of 2739 patients 18–95 years of age (mean age 47 y, 65% women, 80% white) who completed a study questionnaire including the GAD-7 scale were evaluated with the diagnostic standard. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Description of test: the GAD-7 scale: patients rate answers (0 = not at all, 1 = several days, 2 = more than half the days, 3 = nearly every day) to 7 anxiety related questions; how often in the past … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.issn%253D0003-9926%26rft.aulast%253DSpitzer%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D166%26rft.issue%253D10%26rft.spage%253D1092%26rft.epage%253D1097%26rft.atitle%253DA%2BBrief%2BMeasure%2Bfor%2BAssessing%2BGeneralized%2BAnxiety%2BDisorder%253A%2BThe%2BGAD-7.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchinte.166.10.1092%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16717171%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16717171&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F6%2F184.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237720500008&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it