MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacological treatment of combatinduced PTSD: a literature review

2010· review· en· W93305844 on OpenAlexaff
Debra Lynn

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEPsychotherapistPsychologyPsychiatryIntensive care medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, soldiers have returned from war changed men. Over the years there has been an increase in awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the impact of diagnosis. Treatment of PTSD presents a challenge on every level. This literature review provides some insight into the risks and benefits of three groups of drugs commonly prescribed for combat-induced PTSD: beta-blockers, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and benzodiazepines (BZDs). When prescribed in conjunction with other non-pharmacological treatments, these drugs help to minimize, and in some cases eliminate, the signs and symptoms of PTSD. Combination therapy would ideally result in better compliance and eventual completion of treatment programmes provided for PTSD sufferers. Healthcare professionals strive to provide patients with holistic care. Patients present with unique mental and physical intricacies, and nurses and health professionals must peel away the layers to uncover the nature of the PTSD. While there are many aspects to PTSD treatment, this literature review focuses on pharmacological treatment, specifically beta-blockers, SSRIs and BZDs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.258
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of NursingSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207