MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170051211 · doi:10.1521/ijgp.2012.62.2.309

Group CBT for Early Psychosis—Are There Still Benefits One Year Later?

2012· article· en· W2170051211 on OpenAlex
Tania Lecomte, Claude Leclerc, Til Wykes

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Group Psychotherapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychosisAttritionRandomized controlled trialGroup psychotherapyPsychologyCognitive therapyCognitive behavioral therapyClinical psychologyCognitive behaviour therapyCognitionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our team recently conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing group cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp) to group social skills training for symptom management and a wait-list control group, for early psychosis. The results at post-therapy and six months provided considerable empirical support for the efficacy of the group CBTp. The results of the one-year follow-up are described here. Given the high attrition rates, mostly in the comparison and control conditions, imputations were not possible, so that only the results of those having completed more than 50% of the group CBTp are presented. Significant improvements at 12 months were found for social support and insight. Negative symptoms remained low, whereas positive symptoms went back to pre-therapy levels. Challenges regarding attrition with this clientele are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it