Emerging Evidence for Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy with Personality Disorders and Somatic Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CME Educational Objectives 1. Review the outcome evidence of prior meta-analytic reviews of intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP). 2. Provide an additional meta-analysis of ISTDP for the treatment of personality and somatic disorders. 3. Suggest areas for future study in the use of psychodynamic psychotherapy for personality and somatic disorders. The literature reviewing studies of psychodynamic psychotherapy clearly demonstrates evidence for the efficacy of both short-term and long-term models. 1–3 Meta-analytic reviews synthesizing effects across different psychodynamic psychotherapy formats have been conducted for common mental disorders, 1 depression, 4,5 depression in the setting of personality disorder, 6 personality disorders, 7 and somatic disorders. 8 Psychodynamic psychotherapy demonstrates superiority to control condition, 1,9 and no significant difference to other formal psychotherapies, including cognitive behavioral therapies. 4,5,7,9,10 Building upon a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis, 11 the aim of this article is to further examine the evidence for a contemporary psychodynamic psychotherapy treatment protocol, 12,13 intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP), in the treatment of personality and somatic disorders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".