Characteristics of panic disorder patients consulting an emergency department with noncardiac chest pain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this article is to describe the characteristics of patients with panic disorder from an emergency department by comparing them to patients with panic disorder from psychiatric settings on panic symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, and psychological correlates of panic disorder. Methods: Eighty-four consecutive patients consulting an emergency department with noncardiac chest pain and diagnosed as having panic disorder, and 126 patients with panic disorder seen in two specialized clinics for anxiety disorders, were assessed with validated clinical interview and questionnaires. Results: Panic disorder patients recruited in the emergency department were older and reported fewer panic symptoms than their psychiatric settings counterparts. They also had less severe agoraphobic cognitions and less sensitivity to anxiety. The two samples displayed similar rates of psychiatric comorbidities and similar rates of suicidal ideation, with 24.3% to 31.3% of panic disorder patients overall having had thoughts of killing themselves. Discussion: Panic disorder patients encountered in the emergency department tend to report physical, rather than psychological, symptoms of panic. This finding could explain the extremely low rates of panic disorder recognition in the emergency department. Conclusion: Despite showing less severe panic symptoms, and sometimes no emotional orcognitive signs of fear at all, emergency department patients with panic disorder have elevated rates of psychiatric comorbidities and suicidal ideation and need adequate clinical attention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".