Gender differences in the etiology of anxiety sensitivity: a twin study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the magnitude of genetic and environmental factors on anxiety sensitivity by gender. DESIGN: Classic twins reared-together study design. PATIENTS: A community sample of 337 twin pairs, including 179 monozygotic (45 brother and 134 sister pairs) and 158 dizygotic (28 brother, 94 sister, and 36 brother-sister pairs). METHOD: Twin pairs completed the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI) using a postal survey design. The ASI is composed of three factors: (1) fear of anxiety-related somatic sensations; (2) fear of cognitive dyscontrol due to beliefs that sensations like depersonalization are signs of mental illness (e.g., fear of concentration problems); and (3) fear of publicly observable anxiety reactions (e.g., fear of trembling). Biometrical modeling techniques were used to estimate heritability of the ASI dimensions by gender. RESULTS: ASI factors are heritable only in women, accounting for 37% to 48% of the total variance (median, 44.5%). Environmental factors accounted for all the variability in men. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for understanding the etiology of panic disorder. Previous research suggests that anxiety sensitivity is a risk factor or diathesis for this disorder, and that panic disorder is more prevalent in women than men. Our findings suggest the hypothesis that the increased prevalence in women may occur because anxiety sensitivity is heritable in women.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".