Prospective mental imagery in patients with major depressive disorder or anxiety disorders
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
Prospective negative cognitions are suggested to play an important role in maintaining anxiety disorders and major depressive disorder (MDD). However, little is known about positive prospective mental imagery. This study investigated differences in prospective mental imagery among 27 patients with anxiety disorders, 24 patients with MDD, and 32 control participants. Measures of both deliberately generated and intrusive imagery were completed. Results indicated that both patients with anxiety disorders and those with MDD provided poorer vividness ratings for deliberately generated prospective positive scenarios compared to the control group. Patients with anxiety disorders showed a greater ability to vividly generate imagery for prospective negative scenarios than both patients with MDD and control participants. Finally, both clinical groups reported greater levels of intrusive prospective imagery of personally-relevant events as compared to the control group. The current findings underline the necessity to target prospective positive mental imagery in treating MDD and anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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