MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770207390 · doi:10.1111/eip.12520

Pilot study of cognitive remediation and motivational interviewing in youth at risk of serious mental illness

2017· article· en· W2770207390 on OpenAlexaff
Danijela Piškulić, Sylvia Romanowska, Jean Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Intervention in Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotivational interviewingCognitionMental illnessIntervention (counseling)AttritionClinical psychologyPsychologyCognitive remediation therapyPsychiatryMedicineMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this pilot project was to determine the recruitment feasibility for a computerized cognitive remediation treatment (CRT) for youth at-risk of serious mental illness (SMI), and treatment adherence following an adjunct treatment of motivational interviewing (MI). METHODS: Twelve youth at-risk of SMI were randomized to receive either CRT or CRT plus MI. CRT was conducted over 10 wk during which time 5 MI sessions were available for the CRT + MI group. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 55%. The attrition rate from the study was 25% and on average participants completed 33% of the CRT sessions, with no group differences in the number of CRT sessions completed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment adherence was low. Participants described the CRT as easy and unchallenging. Future recommendations include engaging youth at-risk into CRT programs based on cognitive deficits, measuring intervention satisfaction and offering access to supportive therapies for concerns other than cognition.

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 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Intervention in PsychiatrySame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207