MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: Techniques, Efficacy, and Indications

2006· review· en· W1640346996 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychotherapy · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychotherapistPsychodynamic psychotherapyRandomized controlled trialPsychologyCognitive therapyCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionPsychodynamicsClinical psychologyMEDLINEMental healthPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: In this article, we provide an overview of the techniques and efficacy of the two most commonly used psychotherapeutic treatments of psychiatric disorders in adults: cognitive-behavioral and psychodynamic therapy. Psychotherapeutic techniques, major indications, and empirical evidence will be presented. The focus will be on empirically supported models of treatment. CONTEXT: Cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic psychotherapy are the most frequently applied methods of psychotherapy in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To give an up-to-date description of cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic psychotherapy and to review empirical evidence for efficacy in specific mental disorders. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews of psychotherapy outcome research based on evidence-based methods were used. In order to identify more recent trials, Medline, Psyclnfo, Pubmed, and Current Contents were searched in addition in July 2005 using database-specific keywords. In October 2005, the search was updated. Text books and journal articles were used as well. STUDY SELECTION: The authors reviewed the available systematic surveys and meta-analyses as well as the additionally identified studies using established inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Following the evidence-based methods of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, an established hierarchy of study designs was applied. Using rigorous criteria, only evidence from randomized controlled trials (Type 1 studies) was included. The authors independently assessed for which mental disorders randomized controlled trials provide evidence for the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy or psychodynamic psychotherapy in specific disorders. DATA SYNTHESIS: The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral in many mental disorders has been demonstrated by a substantial number of randomized controlled trials and several meta-analyses. However, for specific disorders the rates of treatment responders are not yet sufficient. For psychodynamic psychotherapy, clearly less efficacy studies are available. However, the available studies provided evidence that psychodynamic psychotherapy is an effective treatment of specific mental disorders as well. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is substantial evidence for the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and some evidence for the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy, further studies are required to improve the positive outcome rates of treatment responders in specific mental disorders. For psychodynamic psychotherapy further studies of specific forms of treatment in specific mental disorders are required to corroborate the available results.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.383 · 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