The psychological impact of pulmonary embolism: A mixed‐methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE) are reported to experience symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and existential anxiety following their diagnosis. They may also experience negative changes in perspective and hypervigilance of PE symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to document the mental and emotional experience associated with PE diagnosis through the lens of PTSD, to better understand the factors involved in psychological distress following receipt of a PE diagnosis. PATIENTS/METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study in two parts: (i) measurement of self-reported PTSD symptoms among patients attending thrombosis clinic and (ii) semistructured interviews with patients about their experience of receiving a diagnosis of PE and its psychological aftermath. RESULTS: Of 72 patients who participated in the survey, two met the criteria for a tentative diagnosis of PTSD. The semistructured interviews with 37 patients suggested that around half of respondents experienced some degree of ongoing psychological distress. Those with psychological distress often recalled painful symptoms, recalled diagnosis delivery as stressful, worried about PE recurrence, and had anxieties about stopping their anticoagulant medication. Few patients reported inclination to seek support from professional mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: We found ongoing and untreated psychological distress among people who were previously diagnosed with PE.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".