MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108661703 · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2010.05.008

Intrusive imagery in severe health anxiety: Prevalence, nature and links with memories and maintenance cycles

2010· article· en· W2108661703 on OpenAlex
Kate Muse, Freda McManus, Ann Hackmann, Matthew Williams, Mark Williams

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour Research and Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLupina FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsRuminationAnxietyDistractionPsychologyDistressingPsychiatryAnxiety disorderRecallMental illnessClinical psychologyMental healthCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased understanding of the nature and role of intrusive imagery has contributed to the development of effective treatment protocols for some anxiety disorders. However, intrusive imagery in severe health anxiety (hypochondriasis) has been comparatively neglected. Hence, the current study investigates the prevalence, nature and content of intrusive imagery in 55 patients who met DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) criteria for the diagnosis of hypochondriasis. A semi-structured interview was used to assess the prevalence, nature and possible role of intrusive imagery in this disorder. Over 78% of participants reported experiencing recurrent, distressing intrusive images, the majority (72%) of which either were a memory of an earlier event or were strongly associated with a memory. The images tended to be future orientated, and were reliably categorised into four themes: i) being told 'the bad news' that you have a serious/life threatening-illness (6.9%), ii) suffering from a serious or life-threatening illness (34.5%), iii) death and dying due to illness (22.4%) and iv) impact of own death or serious illness on loved ones (36.2%). Participants reported responding to experiencing intrusive images by engaging in avoidance, checking, reassurance seeking, distraction and rumination. Potential treatment implications and links to maintenance cycles are considered.

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.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.336 · 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