Why We Recommend Analytic Treatment for Some Patients and Not for Others
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred consecutive patients applying for analysis completed a comprehensive battery of structured interviews and self-report questionnaires assessing dimensions of psychopathology and psychological functions that analysts consider important when evaluating patients for analysis. Patients were evaluated for analysis by a candidate supervised by a training analyst. Fifty patients were accepted for analysis and fifty rejected. In both groups, psychiatric morbidity and psychosocial impairment were high, with a 50% current and 74% lifetime diagnosis of mood disorder, 56% current and 61% lifetime history of anxiety disorder. The mean Beck Depression Inventory score fell in the moderate range, 19.1 (SD = 11.0), mean Hamilton Depression score in the mild range, 14.1 (SD = 7.8), and the mean Hamilton Anxiety score in the moderate range, 14.6 ( SD = 8.1), with 57% meeting criteria for an Axis II diagnosis, and mean social adjustment in the moderate to high pathology range. Patients accepted and rejected for analysis did not differ with regard to any of these dimensions. Accepted patients scored lower on measures of impulsivity, aggression, and sociopathy, and on scores of personality rigidity, primitive defenses, and outward aggression. The major finding was the striking similarity between patients accepted and rejected for psychoanalytic treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".