MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116388723 · doi:10.1002/da.10052

Posttraumatic stress disorder and the structure of common mental disorders

2002· article· en· W2116388723 on OpenAlexaff
Brian J. Cox, Ian Clara, Murray W. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueDepression and Anxiety · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPanic disorderPsychopathologyComorbidityClinical psychologyPsychiatryPanicEtiologyAnxietyNational Comorbidity SurveyMood disordersSpecific phobiaAnxiety disorderPosttraumatic stress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Krueger [1999: Arch Gen Psychiatry 56:921-926] identified a three-factor structure of psychopathology that explained the covariation or grouping of common mental disorders found in the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) [Kessler et al., 1994: Arch Gen Psychiatry 51:8-19]. These three fundamental groupings included an externalizing disorders factor and two internalizing disorders factors (anxious-misery and fear). We extended this research through the examination of additional data from a large subsample of the NCS (n=5,877) that contained diagnostic information on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Factor analytic findings revealed that PTSD showed no affinity with the fear factor defined by panic and phobic disorders, and instead loaded on the anxious-misery factor defined primarily by mood disorders. An identical pattern of results emerged for both lifetime PTSD and 12-month PTSD prevalence figures. Implications of these findings for the classification of PTSD and research on its etiology are briefly discussed.

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)0.007
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations147
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDepression and AnxietySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207