MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychotropic Medication Use, Personality Disorder and Improvement in Long-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy

2006· article· en· W2007034846 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Bond, J. Christopher Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Psychodynamic psychotherapyAnxietyDistressPersonalityPsychiatryModerationPersonality pathologyPersonality disordersPsychologyBorderline personality disorderClinical psychologyPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients receiving long-term dynamic psychotherapy often have both depression and personality disorders (PDs) and take medications concurrently. Our goal was to determine the extent of medication use in an outpatient sample and the relationships of medication use and PD status to diagnostic and symptom measures. Fifty-three patients (25 of whom were taking medications at intake) who entered a long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy study for the treatment of chronic or recurrent depression, anxiety, and/or PDs were followed up to 7 years. PD patients who received combined therapy showed significant improvement in functioning and distress, while those receiving only psychotherapy showed significant improvement in depression and distress. Non-PD patients receiving only psychotherapy showed significant improvement in functioning. Long-term dynamic psychotherapy was associated with improvement in symptoms and functioning for the sample as a whole. PD pathology and being on medications at intake acted as moderator variables: PD predicted a smaller effect size in depression and functioning, while medications predicted a smaller effect size in depression only.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207