Fright (Effroi) and other Peritraumatic Responses after a Serious Motor Vehicle Accident: Prospective Influence on Acute PTSD Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We prospectively examined the relation between various peritraumatic responses (that is, fear, helplessness, horror, amnesia, and fright) and the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 2 months after a trauma. METHOD: Participants included 123 motor vehicle accident (MVA) victims consecutively hospitalized in a traumatology department for over 72 hours during a 16-month period. Between day 2 and day 5 of their hospitalization, a psychiatrist assessed the patients' peritraumatic responses and acute stress disorder (ASD). Two months after the accident, an experienced psychiatrist contacted the patients by telephone, and the PTSD symptoms and the diagnosis were assessed with a modified version of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). RESULTS: Of the participants, 48 reported an immediate fright reaction when faced with the prospect of their own death. Participants who reported a fright experience had a 17 times greater risk of subsequently meeting the diagnostic criteria for PTSD (odds ratio 16.75). A fright reaction predicted PTSD development with a specificity of 0.93 and a sensitivity of 0.60 CONCLUSION: The immediate reactions described in criterion A2 of the DSM-IV (that is, fear, helplessness, and horror) did not seem to be equally relevant. An initial feeling of fright seems to be an essential qualitative factor in the clinical description of psychological trauma.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".