MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040817673 · doi:10.1177/1359104510366282

Worried no more: The effects of medication status on treatment response to a CBT group for children with anxiety in a community setting

2010· article· en· W2040817673 on OpenAlexaff
Julie A. Eichstedt, Juliana I. Tobon, Elizabeth Phoenix

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyAnxiety disorderClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyCognitive behavioral therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study compared preexisting groups of medicated and non-medicated children aged 8-13 years, with a primary diagnosis of an anxiety disorder, participating in a 12-session, manualized cognitive-behavior therapy group (GCBT). Of the 42 children, 13 (31%) were concurrently treated with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) for anxiety while they attended group treatment. Treatment outcomes for these medicated children were compared to those of children who were not on any medications for anxiety. Results suggested that both groups showed a significant decrease in their anxiety symptoms from pre- to post-treatment and from pre-treatment to 4-month follow-up, based on both child- and parent-report. No significant differences in anxiety symptoms were found between the medicated and non-medicated groups at pre-, post-, or 4-month follow-up, suggesting that the two groups benefited similarly from GCBT.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207