Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the prevention of relapse and recurrence in major depression.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study followed treatment responders from a randomized controlled trial of adults with major depression. Patients treated with medication but withdrawn onto pill-placebo had more relapse through 1 year of follow-up compared to patients who received prior behavioral activation, prior cognitive therapy, or continued medication. Prior psychotherapy was also superior to medication withdrawal in the prevention of recurrence across the 2nd year of follow-up. Specific comparisons indicated that patients previously exposed to cognitive therapy were significantly less likely to relapse following treatment termination than patients withdrawn from medication, and patients previously exposed to behavioral activation did almost as well relative to patients withdrawn from medication, although the difference was not significantly different. Differences between behavioral activation and cognitive therapy were small in magnitude and not significantly different across the full 2-year follow-up, and each therapy was at least as efficacious as the continuation of medication. These findings suggest that behavioral activation may be nearly as enduring as cognitive therapy and that both psychotherapies are less expensive and longer lasting alternatives to medication in the treatment of depression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".