Counterbalancing patient demands with evidence: Results from a pan-canadian randomized clinical trial of brief supportive-expressive group psychotherapy for women with systemic lupus erythematosus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Brief Supportive-Expressive Group Psychotherapy as an adjunct to standard medical care in reducing psychological distress, medical symptoms, and health care costs and improving quality of life in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 133 SLE female patients from 9 clinics across Canada. Clinical and psychosocial measures were taken at baseline, posttreatment, and 6 and 12 months posttreatment. Outcomes assessed were psychological distress, quality of life, disease activity, health service utilization, and diminished productivity. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses revealed that there were no clinically important group differences on any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Although both groups improved over time on several measures (e.g., decreases in psychological distress, stress, and emotion-oriented coping), these changes could not be attributed to the psychotherapeutic intervention. Thus, evidence does not support the referral of these patients to this type of intervention.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it