MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037600007 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20609

Cognitive‐behavioral therapy for individuals at high risk of developing psychosis

2009· article· en· W2037600007 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Addington, Enza Mancuso

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisPsychologyIntervention (counseling)CognitionClinical psychologyCognitive behavioral therapyProdromePsychiatryCognitive therapySession (web analytics)Psychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early intervention for psychosis has become an established clinical practice. Research is now focusing on identifying individuals in the pre-psychotic period when they appear to be putatively prodromal for psychosis. Criteria have been established for identifying these young people who are at clinical high risk, and there have been some early studies testing both pharmacological and psychological treatments. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been tested as a potentially effective intervention in this group. Here, we describe two cases that were treated with CBT.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207