MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937787050 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214998

Characterizing emotional Stroop interference in posttraumatic stress disorder, major depression and anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2937787050 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyne Joyal, Tobias Wensing, Jean Levasseur‐Moreau, Jean Leblond, Alexander T. Sack, Shirley Fecteau

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroop effectAnxietyAnxiety disorderMajor depressive disorderGeneralized anxiety disorderClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineCognitionMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder is a debilitating psychiatric disorder characterized by symptoms of intrusive re-experiencing of trauma, avoidance and hyper-arousal. Diagnosis and treatment of PTSD is further complicated by concurrently occurring disorders, the most frequent being major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Previous research highlights that attentional processing in posttraumatic stress disorder is associated with substantial interference by emotional stimuli, a phenomenon also observed in these concurrently occurring psychiatric disorders. However, the diagnosis-relevance of this interference remains elusive. Here, we investigated the emotional Stroop interference for diagnosis-related stimuli, generally negative stimuli, and generally positive stimuli in posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. METHODS: We performed a systematic database search in PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library and PsycINFO on emotional Stroop performance in individuals with a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder or anxiety disorders separately. Mean effect sizes, standard errors and confidence intervals were estimated for each clinical group and healthy control group comparison using random effect models. RESULTS: As compared to healthy control group, the posttraumatic stress disorder group displayed greater interference by diagnosis-related stimuli and positive stimuli but not for generally negative stimuli. The major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders groups showed greater interference by diagnosis-related and negative stimuli, but not by positive stimuli. The age and sex had no significant impact on interference. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of diagnosis-relevant information on attentional processing in all three clinical populations, posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Further, the impact of generally negative stimuli but not generally positive stimuli in major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders indicate impaired attentional bias for mood-congruent stimuli but not for general stimuli. Finally, it remains to be studied whether the influence of generally positive stimuli in posttraumatic stress disorder indicate that positive stimuli are perceived as PTSD related.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.021
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207