Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Pathological Gambling in Parkinson’s Disease: A Pilot Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and differences in response to treatment of two groups of pathological gamblers: with comorbid Parkinson's disease (PG + PD) and without (PG - PD). METHODS: Clinical and psychopathological profiles and response to cognitive-behavioral treatment were assessed in 15 PG + PD and 45 PG - PD individuals consulting a specialized hospital Unit. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups on a series of clinical variables. PG + PD patients were older and presented later onset of problematic gambling behaviors, lower alcohol consumption and higher bingo playing than PG - PD patients. No significant differences were noted in psychopathology except for lower measures of hostility in the PG + PD group. No statistical differences were detected between groups in terms of response to treatment. CONCLUSION: These results may provide guidance for obtaining accurate diagnostic information in pathological gamblers by properly identifying patients with specific needs that may be targeted with treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".