MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994916592 · doi:10.4103/ipj.ipj_31_19

Correlates of worry and functional somatic symptoms in generalized anxiety disorder

2019· article· en· W2994916592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandeep Grover, Vijaya Kumar, Ajit Avasthi

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Psychiatry Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScaleGeneralized anxiety disorderAnxietyClinical psychologyPsychologySomatizationPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Worry and functional somatic symptoms (FSS) are important clinical features of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Although there is literature on the prevalence of worry and FSS in GAD, there is limited data on psychological correlates of worry and somatic symptoms in patients with GAD. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to evaluate the relationship of worry and FSS with somatosensory amplification, health anxiety (hypochondriasis), and alexithymia in patients with GAD. METHODS: Forty patients with the diagnosis of GAD were assessed with Penn State Worry Questionnaire, Bradford Somatic Inventory (BSI), GAD-7 Scale, somatosensory amplification Scale (SSAS), Whiteley Index (WI), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 Hindi version (TAS-H-20). RESULTS: Worry had significant positive correlation with total scores of BSI, GAD-7 scale, TAS-H-20 subscale 1, SSAS, and WI. Younger age of onset was associated with higher FSS as assessed on BSI. BSI total score had positive correlation with total scores of GAD-7 scale, TAS-H-20 and its subscales, SSAS, WI, and with the severity grades of BSI and GAD. CONCLUSION: Worry and FSS are associated with somatosensory amplification and hypochondriasis. In addition, somatic symptoms are associated with alexithymia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial Psychiatry JournalSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207