MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100085889

Subthreshold PTSD: A comparison of depression and alcohol problems in Canadian peacekeepers with different levels of traumatic stress

2004· article· en· W7100085889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubthreshold conductionDepression (economics)AnxietyPosttraumatic stressTraumatic stressMental healthAlcohol use disorder
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing literature addressing the issue of subthreshold posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has appeared in recent years. However, only a small portion of this growing literature base represents empirical investigations of subthreshold PTSD and its implications. Further, the reliance on the categorical and diagnostic models of psychiatric disorders has lead to a lack of investigations into the study of the posttraumatic sequelae that fall short of full criteria for PTSD. Next to the number of symptoms as the main criterion for defining a subthreshold disorder, this investigation seeks to define the extent of impairment, which has been considered the most salient criterion for defining a subthreshold anxiety disorder. Substantial disability, depression and alcohol use as well as a great need for health care has been well studied for veterans with PTSD, but these associations have not been well studied in the subthreshold population. Few studies have examined the role of comorbidty and impairment in veterans with subthreshold PTSD. This study found statistically significant differences between groups of peacekeepers with full and no PTSD on measures of depressive symptoms, alcohol use disorders, and number of physical problems and found statistically significant differences between the subthreshold and

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207