MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031253485 · doi:10.2174/138161212799316082

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Prodromal Psychosis

2012· review· en· W2031253485 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Addington, Catherine Marshall, Paul French

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychosisPsychological interventionCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionPsychiatryEarly psychosisClinical trialPsychologyCognitive therapyPsychological therapyCognitive behaviour therapyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a strong impetus in the psychosis research field to develop interventions that aim to prevent the onset of psychotic disorders. Over the past 15 years there has been a tremendous development in the work aimed at understanding the pre-psychotic period. More recently there has been a focus on developing and testing treatments both pharmacological and psychological that could potentially prevent or delay the onset of psychosis. One of the psychological treatments that has received the most attention is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Relatively few trials have been completed and this paper reviews the existing trials. Implications of these trials for the treatment of this early phase as well as for designing future studies are discussed. Keywords: Cognitive behavioral therapy, prodromal psychosis, psychotic disorders, pre-psychotic period, ultra-high-risk criteria (UHR), Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental State (CAARMS), antipsychotics, stress management, attenuated symptoms, psychological treatments

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.567
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207