Comparing Interventions for Selective Mutism: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcome within 6 to 8 months of medical and nonmedical intervention for children with severe selective mutism (SM). METHOD: Children with SM (n = 17) and their mothers, seen in a previous study, attended follow-up appointments with a clinician. Obtained by maternal report were: treatment received, current diagnosis (based on semi-structured interview), speech in various environments, and global improvement. An independent clinician also rated global functioning. RESULTS: The diagnosis of SM persisted in 16 children, but significant symptomatic improvement was evident in the sample. All children had received school consultations. Children who had been treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) (n = 10) showed greater global improvement, improvement in functioning, and improvement in speech outside the family than children who were unmedicated (n = 7). No differences were evident for children receiving and not receiving additional nonmedical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the potential benefit of SSRI treatment in severe SM, but randomized comparative treatment studies are indicated.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".