Psychological treatments in schizophrenia: II. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of social skills training and cognitive remediation
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
BACKGROUND: Social skills training and cognitive remediation are psychological techniques with considerable face validity for the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia and their consequences. This paper provides a meta-analytical review of these treatments. It includes an appreciable number of randomized controlled trials, using comparisons against both standard care and other active interventions. However, the assessment of particular outcomes sometimes had to be based on single studies. METHOD: A detailed search strategy was used to identify randomized controlled trials of social skills training and cognitive remediation, primarily employing electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met predefined criteria were then subjected to meta-analysis on a variety of outcome measures. RESULTS: There was no clear evidence for any benefits of social skills training on relapse rate, global adjustment, social functioning, quality of life or treatment compliance. Cognitive remediation had no benefit on attention, verbal memory, visual memory, planning, cognitive flexibility or mental state. CONCLUSIONS: Social skills training and cognitive remediation do not appear to confer reliable benefits for patients with schizophrenia and cannot be recommended for clinical practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.045 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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