MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2133394847 · doi:10.1177/070674370505001409

Childhood Separation Anxiety and Separation Events in Women with Agoraphobia with or without Panic Disorder

2005· article· en· W2133394847 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helmut Peter, Eva Brückner, Iver Hand, Michael Rufer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeparation anxiety disorderAgoraphobiaSeparation (statistics)AnxietyPanicPsychologyAnxiety disorderPanic disorderClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between separation anxiety and actual separation events during childhood in adult patients with agoraphobia with or without panic disorder (PD). METHOD: Forty-two women with agoraphobia with or without PD participated in long-term follow-ups after exposure-in-vivo treatment. We assessed separation anxiety and separation events from age 0 to 18 years, as well as adult separation from a spouse. RESULTS: Childhood separation experiences (55%) and separation anxiety were significantly higher in patients than in healthy subjects, but both conditions were not associated with each other. Childhood separation anxiety was related to adult separation events. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective measures of childhood separation anxiety appear to be confounded by adult separation events. Thus the conclusion of whether childhood anxiety is a consequence of actual childhood separation events cannot be drawn, owing to a lacking association between both ratings.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→