Sowing the seeds of doubt: a narrative review on metacognitive training in schizophrenia
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
The present article provides a narrative review of empirical studies on metacognitive training in psychosis (MCT). MCT represents an amalgam of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), cognitive remediation (CRT) and psychoeducation. The intervention is available in either a group (MCT) or an individualized (MCT+) format. By sowing the seeds of doubt in a playful and entertaining fashion, the program targets positive symptoms, particularly delusions. It aims to raise patients' awareness for common cognitive traps or biases (e.g., jumping to conclusions, overconfidence in errors, bias against disconfirmatory evidence) that are implicated in the formation and maintenance of psychosis. The majority of studies confirm that MCT meets its core aim, the reduction of delusions. Problems (e.g., potential allegiance effects) and knowledge gaps (i.e., outcome predictors) are highlighted. The preliminary data suggest that the individual MCT format is especially effective in addressing symptoms, cognitive biases and insight. We conclude that MCT appears to be a worthwhile complement to pharmacotherapy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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