Self-reports of Cognitive Vulnerabilities for Anxiety Suggest Escalating Severity across Adult Age Ranges: A Cross-sectional Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive vulnerabilities have been posited as central to the development of anxiety disorders and have been given substantial research attention. Despite widespread empirical investigations into the relationships with symptoms of mental disorders, and use as markers of symptom severity among clinical adult populations, research is lacking information on the progression of cognitive vulnerabilities across adulthood. The investments associated with longitudinal research requires a priori evidence of age-related differences from cross-sectional data. The current research used 1477 community members (72% female, 18–64 years) to cross-sectionally assess trends in cognitive vulnerabilities and their dimensions throughout adulthood and between distinct age groups (i.e., 18–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, and 50+). Results suggest small, albeit statistically significant, associations with age which provide important insight into construct stability across adulthood and potentiate an avenue towards the understanding of progression across adulthood. Vulnerabilities encompassing somatic symptoms (i.e., fear of physiological sensations, injury, and illness) and uncertainty over future events (i.e., prospective-IU) exhibited positive linear relationships with age. Vulnerabilities encompassing fears of evaluation (i.e., fear of negative evaluation and socially observable anxiety), behavioral inhibition (i.e., inhibitory-IU), and loss of cognitive control (i.e., fear of cognitive dyscontrol) exhibited quadratic relationships with age. Participants over 50 years of age tended to report elevated cognitive vulnerabilities. Comprehensive results and directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".