Toward an integrative understanding of social phobia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to examine the neurobiology of social phobia from the perspectives of basic sciences, genetics, immunology, neuroendocrinology, neurotransmission and neuroimaging and to provide an integrated understanding of social phobia in the framework of a hypothetical neural circuit. Family and twin studies provide evidence that social phobia is heritable with significant genetic influence, and molecular genetics offers possibilities in understanding the nature of the trait that is transmitted. The biologic distinctiveness of social phobia from anxiety disorders and physiological validation of differences between generalized and discrete social phobia subtypes have been implicated in genetic, naturalistic and chemical challenge studies. Evidence of specific dysfunction of dopaminergic, serotonergic, noradrenergic and GABAergic (gamma-aminobutyric acid) neurotransmitter systems has been presented in animal models, challenge studies and treatment investigations. Preliminary neuroimaging research supports previous studies suggesting striatal dopaminergic dysfunction in social phobia and suggests the importance of functional circuits. A neural circuit involving the striatum, thalamus, amygdala and cortical structures may provide a framework for integrating much of the current knowledge on the neurobiology of social phobia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".