Efficacy of Two Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Modalities for Panic Disorder With Nocturnal Panic Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to examine the efficacy of two cognitive-behavioral treatment modalities for panic disorder (PD) with nocturnal panic (NP). The first study was conducted to determine whether conventional CBT for PD was effective for PD with NP in three participants. A second study sought to explore whether a CBT adapted to NP would lead to different clinical outcomes in three other participants. A multiple-baseline single-case design across individuals was used in both studies. Treatment outcome was assessed with standardized clinician ratings, self-report questionnaires, and daily self-monitoring. Results revealed that both the conventional and the adapted treatments showed a faster decrease in NPs versus daytime panics and significant clinical changes in all measures for up to a year after therapy. Hence, the changes brought about by the adapted treatment seemed to be similar to those obtained using conventional treatment. In light of these results, it can be presumed that conventional strategies may be sufficient for the treatment of NP. These observations raise questions regarding the real need to adapt treatments specifically to NP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".