MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006365543 · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.36809.36966

Systematic Review of the Utility of Physiological Measures as Trauma Treatment Outcome Measures

2020· article· en· W3006365543 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Yang, Outi Outi Linnaranta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionClinical psychologyMEDLINEIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialHeart rate variabilityPsychologyClinical trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHeart rateMedicinePsychiatryPathologyBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Psychophysiological abnormalities have been correlated with trauma, including exaggerated startle and delayed cardiac recovery to baseline. However, the reliability of standard subjective symptom assessments can be compromised by memory biases and declarative memory dysfunction. Comparatively, dynamic emotional changes may be objectively indicated by physiological responses. Aim Evaluate the utility and validity of psychophysiological markers as trauma intervention outcome measures. Methods Search Criteria A systematic review of trauma-focused interventions was conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, and Medline databases for randomized controlled trials and longitudinal studies from inception to July 2019. Study selection Twenty-one studies reporting psychophysiological measurement values at post-treatment assessment points were included. Search Terms Three levels of search terms were used. This included terminology for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychophysiological measurement, and Treatment outcomes. Review process: Results were grouped by theme of intervention and interpreted for trends in treatment responses Results Physiological measures including heart rate, heart rate variability, and skin conductance had all been used repeatedly. Changes in these correlated moderately consistently with changes in psychometrics, and using sensing technology presented the added benefit of gathering real-time data. Improving intervention content by identifying specific components of intervention demonstrated clinical utility of biomarkers, and predictive utility was seen in the markers’ sensitivity in predicting levels of treatment response from baseline measures or initial treatment sessions. The greatest advantage of in-vitro physiological assessment from wearable sensor is real-time temporal tracking before, during, and post experimental paradigms. Continuous psychophysiological recordings created and aligned with crucial event markers of the given interventions. Conclusion Psychophysiological measures are a promising objective index of PTSD treatment response that can help verify clinical impressions and self-reports. Elevated psychophysiological responses could be a pathogenic mechanism in the etiology or expression of PTSD, and thus, a means or measure of intervention. Further research is needed to confirm clinical utility of psychophysiological measures, provide valid response cut-offs, and reduce measurement error from data processing.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0150.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207