The pathogenesis of anxiety syndromes in the concepts of Jaak Panksepp and Joseph LeDoux: implications for pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
research.He describes seven basic emotional systems, including at least two responsible for the response of individuals to danger, which proceeds unconsciously.Within the single fear system, LeDoux and Pine describe a two-system concept, consisting of a system based on a cognitive appraisal and a system based on defensive behaviours and physiological responses.Targeted anxiolytic treatment should be accompanied by the recognition of the pathomechanism of anxiety and the use of the best possible therapeutic method.Depending on the genesis of the patient's response to danger, different therapeutic approaches can be used.Conclusions.Both Panksepp and LeDoux refer to the original patterns of response to danger.However, the detailed exploration and characterisation of the neurobiology of the human brain, including the use of functional imaging, may make it possible to tailor anti-anxiety therapies (both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy) to the individual patient. StreSzczenieCel. Prezentowana praca skupia się na omówieniu dwóch teorii patogenezy zespołów lękowych, autorstwa Jaaka Pankseppa i Josepha LeDoux, oraz na analizie wpływu tych założeń na aspekty kliniczne farmakoterapii i psychoterapii.Przegląd piśmiennictwa.Panksepp, badając lęk, podkreślał jego ewolucyjny i neurobiologiczny wymiar.Formułował swoje założenia w oparciu o badania AbStrAct Objectives.This paper describes two theories of the pathogenesis of anxiety disorders (by Jaak Panksepp and Joseph LeDoux) and analyses the impact of theory assumptions on the clinical aspects of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.Literature review.In studying anxiety, Panksepp emphasises its evolutionary and neurobiological dimensions.He formulates his assumptions based on empirical
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".