MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791215957 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.38612

Non‐pharmacological treatment of psychiatric disorders in individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome; a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2791215957 on OpenAlexafffund
Petra C. M. Buijs, Anne S. Bassett, Erik Boot

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)AnxietyRandomized controlled trialCognitionSystematic reviewClinical psychologyNeuropsychologyMedicineClinical trialPsychologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) is associated with high rates of anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, and other psychiatric conditions. In the general population, psychiatric disorders are treated with proven pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). To begin to assess the feasibility and efficacy of non-pharmacological therapies in 22q11.2DS, we performed a systematic search to identify literature on non-pharmacological interventions for psychiatric disorders in individuals with 22q11.2DS. Of 1,240 individual publications up to mid-2016 initially identified, 11 met inclusion criteria. There were five literature reviews, five publications reporting original research (two originating from a single study), and one publication not fitting either category that suggested adaptations to an intervention without providing scientific evidence. None of the original research involved direct study of the evidence-based non-pharmacological therapies available for psychiatric disorders. Rather, these four studies involved computer-based or group interventions aimed at improving neuropsychological deficits that may be associated with psychiatric disorders. Although the sample sizes were relatively small (maximum 28 participants in the intervention group), these reports documented the promising feasibility of these interventions, and improvements in domains of neuropsychological functioning, including working memory, attention, and social cognition. The results of this review underline the need for research into the feasibility and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatments of psychiatric disorders in individuals with 22q11.2DS to inform clinical care, using larger samples, and optimally, standard randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207