Using virtual reality to improve the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in the treatment of late-life anxiety: preliminary recommendations for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using traditional exposure techniques (i.e. imaginal and in vivo) seems less effective to treat anxiety in older adults than in younger ones. This is particularly true when imaginal exposure is used to confront the older patient to inaccessible (e.g. fear of flying) or less tangible/controllable anxiety triggers (e.g. fear of illness). Indeed, imaginal exposure may become less effective as the person gets older since normal aging is characterized by the decline in cognitive functions involved in the creation of vivid/detailed mental images. One way to circumvent this difficulty is to expose the older patient to a virtual environment that does not require the ability to imagine the frightening situation. In virtuo exposure has proven to be efficient to treat anxiety in working-age people. In virtuo exposure could be employed to improve the efficacy of CBT with exposure sessions in the treatment of late-life anxiety? The current paper explores this question and suggests new research avenues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".