MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2808872780 · doi:10.2196/10427

Web-Based Cognitive Bias Intervention for Psychiatric Disorders: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2808872780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melvyn Zhang, Jiangbo Ying, Guo Song, Daniel Fung, Helen Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)CognitionSystematic reviewPsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceMEDLINEAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traditional psychological therapies focus mainly on modification of individuals' conscious decision-making process. Unconscious processes, such as cognitive biases, have been found accountable for various psychiatric psychopathologies, and advances in technologies have transformed how bias modification programs are being delivered. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this review is to synthesize evidence of Web-based cognitive bias modification intervention for bias reduction. The secondary aim is to determine the change in symptoms for individual psychiatric disorders following bias modification. METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted including only randomized trials. There will be no restrictions on participants included in the study. A search will be conducted on the respective databases until 2017. Selection of studies will be by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Quality assessment of included studies will be conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A narrative synthesis of identified articles will then be conducted. A meta-analysis will be considered only if there are sufficient articles in a domain for statistical analysis. Ethical approval for this protocol and the planned systematic review was not required. RESULTS: We expect that the review will be completed 12 months from publication of this protocol. CONCLUSIONS: This review is of importance given how technology has transformed delivery of conventional therapies. Findings from this review will guide future research involving technology and cognitive bias modification interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): 2017 CRD42017074754; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=74754 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/ 71AvSgZGn). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/10427.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.018
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.013

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 head0.528
GPT teacher head0.663
Teacher spread0.134 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→