An Exploration of Young Adults' Progress in Treatment for Dissociative Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although treatment outcome research on dissociative disorders (DD) is increasing, an examination of treatment progress in young adults with these disorders remains noticeably absent from the literature. Many studies of DD patients report mean ages over 35. The present study examined the response to treatment of a subsample of young adults ages 18-30 with dissociative identity disorder and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified who participated in a naturalistic, longitudinal study of DD treatment outcome. Over 30 months, these patients demonstrated decreases in destructive behaviors and symptomatology as well as improved adaptive capacities. Compared to the older adult participants in the study, the young adults were more impaired initially. However, these younger patients improved at a rapid pace, such that their clinical presentations were similar to or more improved than those of the older adults at the 30-month follow-up. This brief report suggests not only that young adult DD patients can benefit from a trauma-focused, phasic treatment approach but that their treatment may progress at a faster pace than that of older adults with DD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".