Cognitive therapy is more effective than fluoxetine in people with generalised social phobia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clark DM, Ehlers A, McManus F, et al . Cognitive therapy versus fluoxetine in generalized social phobia: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychology 2003;71:1058–67.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the efficacy of cognitive therapy or fluoxetine in people with generalised social phobia? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: Randomised placebo controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: Concealed for the two arms receiving medication. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: Double blind, for the two arms receiving medication. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: Twelve months. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK; timeframe not stated. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: Sixty people (31 female, 29 male) meeting DSM IV criteria for generalised social phobia, selected from 123 possible candidates. Mean age 33.2 years. Treatment groups similar with respect to marital and employment status, and education. Exclusions: major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, epilepsy, borderline personality disorder, alcohol or substance dependence, previous treatment with SSRI, exposure therapy or cognitive therapy, refusal to withdraw from … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bconsulting%2Band%2Bclinical%2Bpsychology%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BConsult%2BClin%2BPsychol%26rft.aulast%253DClark%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D71%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D1058%26rft.epage%253D1067%26rft.atitle%253DCognitive%2Btherapy%2Bversus%2Bfluoxetine%2Bin%2Bgeneralized%2Bsocial%2Bphobia%253A%2Ba%2Brandomized%2Bplacebo-controlled%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1037%252F0022-006X.71.6.1058%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14622081%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0022-006X.71.6.1058&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14622081&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F3%2F75.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000186693600011&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".