Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article summarizes recent studies of psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood disorders. It is important to note whether the therapy studied is adhering to the principles of psychodynamic psychotherapy, whether it is manual based or flexibly responsive to patient developments, whether it is short term or long term and whether it is combined with pharmacotherapy. RECENT FINDINGS: A review of recently published studies has found that all studies show a significant improvement in symptoms in patients who were depressed before treatment with psychodynamic psychotherapy. It is rare, however, for a study to meet the criteria of randomized clinical trials: use of treatment manuals and assured adherence, a sample of patients specifically diagnosed with depression and relevant measures. In one metaanalysis of studies meeting the above criteria, two of 17 studies included a sample with a diagnosis of depression, and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy achieved similar results as other psychotherapies. Naturalistic studies show improvement with dynamic psychotherapy over time in both symptoms and dynamic measures, such as defense styles and frustration tolerance. SUMMARY: In the last year there were few randomized controlled studies specifically examining psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood disorders. Most evidence from naturalistic and various efficacy studies indicates that dynamic psychotherapy, with or without pharmacotherapy, is associated with improvement in symptoms and some character features. Longer follow-ups provide useful data for what can be a chronic or recurring illness. There are no data showing that psychodynamic therapy is more or less effective than other forms of psychotherapy.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".