MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4365509748 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14660361.v2

The Impact of Exposure on Generalized Anxiety Disorder-Related Symptoms and Cognitive Processes: The Role of Stimulus Variation

2023· preprint· en· W4365509748 on OpenAlexafffund
Katie Fracalanza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWorryGeneralized anxiety disorderPsychologyCognitionAnxietyClinical psychologyStimulus (psychology)PsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories indicate that individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) avoid imagining threatening scenarios that have not occurred. Cognitive exposure to these images is a component of treatment; however, few studies have examined its efficacy. The current study assessed the impact of cognitive exposure and varying exposure content on GAD symptoms and cognitive processes. Forty-eight individuals with GAD were assigned to three sessions of : (1) variable exposure (VE), (2) consistent exposure (CE), or (3) neutral control writing (NC). Emotional activation was assessed during each session. Outcome measures were administered at pretest and 1-week follow-up. The CE condition showed improvements in GAD symptoms and cognitive processes, the VE condition showed less belief that their worse worry would occur, and the NC condition showed reduced GAD symptoms and interpretation bias. Emotional activation decreased across session in the CE condition; however, this did not predict outcomes. The theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→