MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W285059606 · doi:10.1177/070674370505000601

Social Anxiety Disorder

2005· letter· en· W285059606 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Richard P. Swinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial anxietyAnxietyAnxiety disorderPsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As defined in the DSM-IV-TR (1), social anxiety disorder (SAD), or social phobia, is now well recognized as a prevalent and significantly impairing disorder with an onset early in life. Since Liebowitz and colleagues' commentary regarding the neglect of SAD in the contemporary literature (2), there has been considerable research into the nature of SAD, its natural history, its biological and environmental underpinnings, and its treatment. There has also been concern about the pathologizing of normal temperamental variations. This concern is most commonly linked to the use of pharmacologic treatments, particularly in younger patients, and has been exacerbated by the debate about the safety of antidepressant treatment of children and adolescents (3). Epidemiologic studies show that SAD is among the most prevalent of all mental disorders. It is frequently comorbid with other anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders (4). It also remains undiagnosed and untreated for many years after onset. Few psychiatric disorders involve a debate about whether the condition in question should be regarded as a disorder and, if so, whether people with the condition should receive treatment for their distress. In the case of SAD, the debate extends to the question of whether the therapeutic approach with the largest data base regarding efficacy-namely, psychopharmacology-should be employed. Longitudinal investigations of children with behavioural inhibition show that many retain these temperamental and behavioural features as they develop (5) and that they have characteristics of social anxiety and avoidance. Untreated SAD does not usually remit. The educational, interpersonal and vocational pathways of subjects with social anxiety are frequently adversely affected. Early recognition and early intervention are being increasingly advocated in other disorders and deserve consideration for the child and adolescent suffering from anxiety. It has been found that few children identified as meeting criteria for SAD receive any treatment (6). In a sample of 190 parents, only 31% of the children who suffered from current anxiety disorder had received any treatment, compared with 40% of those with depression and 79% of those with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. With the exception of specific phobia, the commonest anxiety disorder was social phobia, which had a 1-year prevalence rate of 3.2% (standard error 1.3%) (6). The approach of intervening early begs the question of where the threshold is set for defining a case. Wakefield and colleagues (7) offer a provocative reexamination of social anxiety and its disorders, founded in a critique of the current DSM criteria. In their view, the number of true cases of SAD is markedly lower than epidemiologic studies based on DSM or ICD criteria recognize in community samples. These authors raise the concept of nondisordered social fears that cause suffering as a condition separate from what psychiatrists view as SAD. Should we reexamine the criteria for caseness? Will DSM-V take on that task? It has always appeared unlikely that marked increases in case recognition over brief periods of time reflect significant shifts in the actual prevalence of similarly defined cases. Thus SAD's current high prevalence (often quoted as 13.5%), compared with the fact that it was virtually unrecognized 20 years ago, reflects changes in awareness, in the criteria used for diagnosis, in the methods of screening for cases, and in the thresholds used to define caseness. If we cannot be reasonably sure of how to define cases, do we have sufficient evidence to recommend treatment? Our understanding of the efficacy of interventions in SAD is based on 2 streams of investigation: the common dichotomy of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments, together with the combination of these treatments in willing subjects diagnosed with SAD according to DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207