Cognitive Vulnerability in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder and Normal Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess cognitive vulnerability and response style in clinical and normal individuals. METHOD: A sample of 90 individuals was selected for each of the 3 groups of Generalized Anxiety disorder, Dysthymic disorder and normal individuals. They completed MCQ and RSQ. RESULTS: Results analyzed by MANOVA and post hoc showed significant differences among groups. Dysthymic group and GAD reported higher scores on cognitive confidence compared to the normal group. Individuals with GAD showed highly negative beliefs about need to control thought, compared to the other groups, but in cognitive self-consciousness they have no differences with the normal group. In regard to uncontrollability, danger and positive beliefs, GAD group had higher levels than the other groups. Although normal and GAD group didn't show any significant differences in response style, there was a significant difference between Dysthymic group and other groups in all response styles. DISCUSSION: Beliefs and meta-cognitive strategies can be distinguished between clinical and non clinical individuals. Also, findings support the Self-Regulatory Executive Function model. ary committee was effective in recognizing, designing and implementing tailored interventions for reduction of medication errors. A systematic approach is urgently needed to decrease organizational susceptibility to errors, through providing required resources to monitor, analyze and implement effective interventions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".