MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064098242 · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.70.4.908

Does interpersonal psychotherapy protect women from depression in the face of stressful life events?

2002· article· en· W2064098242 on OpenAlexaff
Kate L. Harkness, Ellen Frank, Barbara Anderson, Patricia R. Houck, James F. Luther, David J. Kupfer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsInterpersonal psychotherapyPsychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyInterpersonal communicationInterpersonal relationshipProportional hazards modelPsychiatryPsychotherapistRandomized controlled trialMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study compared the role of life events in predicting time to index episode onset under conditions of no or variable treatment versus the role of life events in predicting time to recurrence during maintenance interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT). Eighty-three women with recurrent major depression participated in acute IPT treatment followed by 2 years of maintenance IPT. Life events were assessed using contextual interview and rating methods. Cox regression survival analyses indicated that, although severe life events were significantly associated with time to index episode onset, there was little evidence of an association between events experienced during maintenance treatment and time to recurrence. These results provide evidence that IPT may decrease the potency of life events in provoking recurrence.

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)0.005
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.397 · 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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207