Serum Cholesterol Level Comparison: Control Subjects, Anxiety Disorder Patients, and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether panic disorder is associated with elevated serum cholesterol levels. Serum cholesterol levels of panic disorder patients are reported to be elevated. This could explain the higher-than-expected cardiovascular mortality in this population. Some evidence exists wherein cholesterol levels are also increased in patients with general anxiety disorder and phobias. To date, there are only 2 reports on cholesterol levels of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients, giving controversial results. METHOD: We compared serum cholesterol levels of anxiety disorder patients, OCD patients, and normal control subjects with each other (n = 60 in each group). Serum cholesterol was measured in each subject before treatment. Subjects of the 3 groups were matched by age and sex. RESULTS: Patients with anxiety disorders and OCD had elevated cholesterol levels, compared with normal control subjects. Cholesterol levels in OCD patients were comparable with those in patients with phobia. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the assumption that elevation in cholesterol level is not a specific feature of panic disorder (as most assumed), but more generally associated with anxiety disorders. Increased cholesterol levels in patients with anxiety disorders and OCD may be of clinical relevance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".