MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098989588

Generalized anxiety disorder and health care use

2015· article· en· W7098989588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryAnxietyGeneralized anxiety disorderHealth careDepression (economics)Anxiety disorderTest (biology)Public health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE To examine self-reported health care use and health care–seeking behaviour of patients meeting DSM-IV’s diagnostic criteria for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). DESIGN Survey of outpatients recruited at three diff erent times of the day using questionnaires on worry and anxiety (a six-item screening questionnaire based on DSM-IV criteria for GAD), on perceived health problems, and on health care use and health care–seeking behaviour. The assessment package also included well validated assessment instruments for insomnia and depression symptoms. All patients seeking health care were invited to participate. Participants completed the survey as they waited in the reception area. SETTING Four randomly selected community-based medical clinics of Quebec city’s metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS A fi nal sample of 1110 patients among 1878 outpatients invited to participate included 219 (19.7%) who tested positive for GAD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Self-reported worry and anxiety (based on DSM-IV criteria for GAD), self-perceived health problems, health care use and health care–seeking behaviour, insomnia, and symptoms of depression. RESULTS Participants who tested positive on a screening test for GAD reported more annual medical visits (5.3 versus 3.4) than other patients. Those who reported at least fi ve annual medical visits were nearly four times more likely to

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207