Predictors of Depressive Relapse During a Two Year Prospective Follow-up after Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies
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
Patient characteristics may partly explain individual differences in long-term maintenance of treatment gains in response to cognitive and behavioral therapies (CBT). This study evaluated the relative contribution of negative cognitive style, behavioral activation, and personality patterns, measured at the end of treatment among treatment responders, towards the risk of relapse of major depressive disorder over a 2-year prospective follow-up. The sample included depressed adults who were randomized and received an adequate dose of one of three forms of CBT, who then fully responded and completed a 2-year prospective follow-up ( N = 93) (Jacobson et al., 1996; Gortner, Gollan, Dobson and Jacobson, 1998). Cox regression analyses revealed that for treatment responders, self-devaluative depressogenic cognitive style did not predict relapse during the 2-year follow-up. Separate cox regression analyses indicated that without considering the contribution of personality patterns, it was important to distinguish the level of behavioral activation (e.g. frequency of pleasant events) from its associated pleasure in predicting relapse. With the introduction of personality patterns; however, an integrated model revealed that only dependent personality pattern was associated with hazard of relapse during the 2-year prospective follow-up. Dependent personality pattern may increase relapse through behavioral passivity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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