MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128295544 · doi:10.1080/10673220303944

Anxiety Symptoms and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in the Elderly: A Review

2003· review· en· W2128295544 on OpenAlexaff
Fahad Alwahhabi

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Review of Psychiatry · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralized anxiety disorderAnxietyComorbidityPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologyAnxiety disorderMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anxiety is a common but underestimated, undertreated, and poorly studied problem in the elderly. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and nonspecific anxiety symptoms that do not fall under a specific anxiety disorder are good examples. The current literature on the epidemiology, consequences, phenomenology, assessment, and treatment implications of these challenging problems is reviewed. A variety of limitations are observed. They include limited understanding of the expression of GAD in this age group, variable definitions of "elderly" (specifically with regard to the minimum age), limited ability of currently available diagnostic instruments to identify GAD in the elderly, and the availability of only a few trials addressing treatment of GAD specifically in this group. Despite these limitations there is enough evidence suggesting GAD in the elderly has a potential for negative consequences independent of the common comorbidity with major depressive disorder. The treatments reviewed are promising but need further research in order to document their safety and efficacy. The limitations of our current knowledge are discussed, with recommendations for future research.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Review of PsychiatrySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207