Combined imaginal exposure and cognitive restructuring therapy is more effective than supportive counselling for treating post-traumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bryant RA, Moulds ML, Guthrie RM, et al . Imaginal exposure alone and imaginal exposure with cognitive restructuring in treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71:706–12.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q For people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), does cognitive restructuring with prolonged imaginal exposure lead to greater symptom relief than imaginal exposure alone? ### ![Graphic][5]</img> Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img> Allocation: Concealed. ### ![Graphic][7]</img> Blinding: Assessors blinded to treatment. ### ![Graphic][8]</img> Follow up period: Six months. ### ![Graphic][9]</img> Setting: Hospital PTSD unit, Sydney, Australia. ### ![Graphic][10]</img> Patients: 58 people referred to PTSD unit after non-sexual assault or traffic accident, displaying PTSD (DSM-IV criteria) ≥ 3 months. Exclusions: history of psychosis, substance dependence, childhood sexual abuse, current suicidal ideation, or aged <17 or >60 years. ### ![Graphic][11]</img> Intervention: Imaginal exposure; imaginal exposure plus cognitive restructuring; or supportive counselling for 8 weekly 90 minute sessions with daily homework. ### ![Graphic][12]</img> Outcomes: PTSD symptoms assessed using clinician administered PTSD scale. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bconsulting%2Band%2Bclinical%2Bpsychology%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BConsult%2BClin%2BPsychol%26rft.aulast%253DBryant%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D71%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D706%26rft.epage%253D712%26rft.atitle%253DImaginal%2Bexposure%2Balone%2Band%2Bimaginal%2Bexposure%2Bwith%2Bcognitive%2Brestructuring%2Bin%2Btreatment%2Bof%2Bposttraumatic%2Bstress%2Bdisorder.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1037%252F0022-006X.71.4.706%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12924676%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.706&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12924676&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F1%2F18.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000184292500009&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".