Self‐criticism predicts differential response to treatment for major depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined the relationship between self-criticism, dependency, and treatment outcome for 102 participants who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria for major depressive disorder. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), or pharmacotherapy with clinical management (PHT-CM) and completed the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Blatt, D'Affilitti, & Quinlan, 1976), a measure of self-criticism and dependency, as part of a broader research protocol. Regression analyses indicated that among individuals in IPT, self-criticism predicted poorer treatment outcome based on depressive symptom severity measured using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Hamilton, 1960, 1967). In addition, there were trends toward dependency predicting worse treatment response in CBT and self-criticism predicting better treatment response in PHT-CM.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it