MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171623194 · doi:10.1521/ijgp.2012.62.2.197

Outcomes of Specific Interpersonal Problems for Binge Eating Disorder: Comparing Group Psychodynamic Interpersonal Psychotherapy and Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

2012· article· en· W2171623194 on OpenAlex
Giorgio A. Tasca, Louise Balfour, Michelle D. Presniak, Hany Bissada

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Group Psychotherapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup psychotherapyPsychotherapistPsychologyInterpersonal communicationInterpersonal psychotherapyBinge eatingClinical psychologyPsychodynamicsCognitionEating disordersPsychiatryMedicineRandomized controlled trialSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed whether an attachment-based treatment, Group Psychodynamic Interpersonal Psychotherapy (GPIP) had a greater impact compared to Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (GCBT) on Cold/Distant and Intrusive/Needy interpersonal problems. Ninety-five individuals with Binge Eating Disorder (BED) were randomized to GPIP or GCBT and assessed at pre-, post-, and six months post-treatment. Both therapies resulted in a significant decrease in all eight interpersonal problem subscales except the Nonassertive subscale. GPIP resulted in a greater reduction in the Cold/Distant subscale compared to GCBT, but no differences were found for changes in the Intrusive/Needy subscale. GPIP may be most relevant for those with BED who have Cold/Distant interpersonal problems and attachment avoidance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.323 · 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