MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073820664 · doi:10.1037/a0028132

Generalized anxiety disorder: A comparison of symptom change in adults receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy or applied relaxation.

2012· article· en· W2073820664 on OpenAlexafffund
Eleanor Donegan, Michel J. Dugas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWorryGeneralized anxiety disorderAnxietyPsychologyRelaxation (psychology)Cognitive behavioral therapyClinical psychologySomatic anxietyCognitionAnxiety disorderMuscle tensionRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryInternal medicineMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is characterized by excessive worry and somatic symptoms of anxiety (e.g., restlessness, muscle tension). Several psychological treatments lead to significant reductions in GAD symptoms by posttreatment. However, little is known about how GAD symptoms change over time. Our main goal was to examine how GAD symptoms changed in relation to one another during 2 distinct but efficacious psychological treatments: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and applied relaxation (AR). Specifically, we asked whether change in worry accounted for change over time in somatic anxiety (or the reverse) to the same degree in CBT and AR. METHOD: We examined data from 57 individuals with GAD enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. Self-report measures of worry and somatic anxiety were obtained daily during treatment. RESULTS: Although the direction of influence between changes in worry and somatic anxiety was bidirectional to some extent in both treatments, a significant difference was also observed: Change in worry accounted for subsequent change in somatic anxiety to a greater extent in CBT than in AR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings allowed us to identify differences in a mechanism of change in GAD symptoms during 2 treatments and to provide some support for the idea that similarly efficacious treatments may produce symptom change via different mechanisms in a manner that is consistent with the theoretical rationales on which the treatments are based.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207