Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide family physicians with a practical approach to recognition, assessment, and treatment of adolescent anxiety disorders complicated by avoidance or oppositional behaviour. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Current literature was searched via MEDLINE using the MeSH headings Anxiety and Anxiety Disorders, focusing on epidemiology, clinical presentations in adolescence, and both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment. In addition, internationally accepted diagnostic criteria, current practice guidelines, and recent textbooks by recognized experts were reviewed. Research evidence and consensus recommendations were integrated with a practical approach developed in a provincial mood and anxiety disorders clinic. MAIN FINDINGS: Anxiety disorders are common in adolescents, with estimated prevalence of at least 10%. Substance abuse and avoiding school are common complications, and irritability with behavioural and rage problems can interfere with effective management. Current controlled research is examining the effectiveness of serotonergic medications known to benefit panic disorder, social phobia, and generalized anxiety in adults. While cognitive and behavioural treatments are effective for some child and adolescent anxiety disorders, they can be difficult to administer, and a supportive and psychoeducational approach could be as effective for those who refuse to go to school. CONCLUSION: Family physicians' awareness of the role of anxiety in adolescent school avoidance and in intense, oppositional emotional reactions at home can lead to more specific assessment and therapeutic intervention. Practical management strategies are recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".