A challenge for psychocardiology: Addressing the causes and consequences of patients’ perceptions of enduring somatic threat.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enduring somatic threat (EST) model of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to life-threatening medical events suggests that PTSD-like symptoms represent patients' sensitization to cues of ongoing threat in the body. In this article, we review research on the prevalence and consequences of such reactions in cardiovascular disease patients, discuss early tests of the EST model, and then report a new test of the EST model in 143 patients enrolled during their first acute coronary syndrome (ACS; i.e., non-ST elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina-colloquially, "heart attack"). Invasive coronary revascularization procedures are commonly used to reduce secondary ACS risk and may reduce patients' EST, as revascularized patients often report being "cured." We assessed ACS patients' initial threat perceptions during emergency department (ED) evaluation and followed them for 1 month for PTSD symptoms (specific for ACS, by telephone). We compared PTSD symptoms in participants who were revascularized (n = 65), catheterized but not revascularized (n = 35), and medically managed (n = 43). PTSD symptoms were lower for revascularized versus medically managed participants (B = -5.32, 95% confidence interval [-9.77, -0.87]), t(98.19) = -2.37, p = .020. In a multiple regression model adjusted for clinical and psychosocial covariates, the interaction of threat perception in the ED and ACS management group was significant (greater ED threat predicted greater 1-month PTSD symptoms only in medically managed participants). These findings offer further support for the EST model and suggest that psychological interventions to preempt patients' development of EST should be considered in the hospital. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".