Remediation of intrusive symptoms of PTSD in fewer than five sessions: a 30-person pre-pilot study of the RTM Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Reconsolidation of Traumatic Memories (RTM) Protocol is a brief non-traumatizing intervention for the intrusive symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is supported by nearly 25 years of anecdotal and clinical reports. This study reports the first scientific evaluation of the protocol. Methods: A 30-person pilot study using male Veterans with a pre-existing diagnosis of PTSD. Intake criteria included interviews and confirmatory re-diagnosis using the PTSD Checklist–Military version (PCL-M). Of 33 people who met the inclusion criteria, 26 completed treatment using the RTM protocol. A small ( n = 5) wait-list control group was included. All participants were reassessed following treatment using the PCL-M. Results: Of 26 program completers, 25 (96%) were symptom free at 6-week follow-up. Mean PCL-M score at intake was 61 points. At the 6-week follow-up, the mean PCL-M score was 28.8, with a mean reduction in scores of 33 points. Hedges’ g was computed for 6-week follow-up and showed a 2.9 SD difference from intake to follow-up. A wait-list control analysis indicated non-significant symptom changes during the 2-week wait period. Discussion: Results suggest that RTM is a promising intervention worthy of further investigation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".