Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Pathological Gambling in Parkinson’s Disease: A Pilot Controlled Study
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
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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