Studies of Social Anxiety Using Ambulatory Assessment: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been an increased interest in understanding social anxiety (SA) and SA disorder (SAD) antecedents and consequences as they occur in real time, resulting in a proliferation of studies using ambulatory assessment (AA). Despite the exponential growth of research in this area, these studies have not been synthesized yet. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and describe the latest advances in the understanding of SA and SAD through the use of AA. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. RESULTS: A total of 70 articles met the inclusion criteria. The qualitative synthesis of these studies showed that AA permitted the exploration of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dynamics associated with the experience of SA and SAD. In line with the available models of SA and SAD, emotion regulation, perseverative cognition, cognitive factors, substance use, and interactional patterns were the principal topics of the included studies. In addition, the incorporation of AA to study psychological interventions, multimodal assessment using sensors and biosensors, and transcultural differences were some of the identified emerging topics. CONCLUSIONS: AA constitutes a very powerful methodology to grasp SA from a complementary perspective to laboratory experiments and usual self-report measures, shedding light on the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral antecedents and consequences of SA and the development and maintenance of SAD as a mental disorder.
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 | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".