Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy for DSM-IV Personality Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the efficacy and long-term effectiveness of intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) in the treatment of patients with DSM-IV personality disorders (PD). Twenty-seven patients with PD were randomized to treatment with ISTDP or a minimal-contact, delayed-treatment control condition. ISTDP-treated patients improved significantly more than controls on all primary outcome indices, reaching the normal ranges on both the brief symptom inventory (1.51-0.51, p < 0.001) and inventory of interpersonal problems (1.56-0.67, p < 0.001). When control patients were treated, they experienced benefits similar to the initial treatment group. In long-term follow-up, the whole group maintained their gains and had an 83.3% reduction of personality disorder diagnoses. Treatment costs were thrice offset by reductions in medication and disability payments. This preliminary study of ISTDP suggests it is efficacious and cost-effective in the treatment of PD. Limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".