MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915385809 · doi:10.1002/jclp.22764

Treating comorbid depression and avoidant personality disorder: The case of Andy

2019· article· en· W2915385809 on OpenAlexaff
Pauline Maillard, Julie Pellaton, Uëli Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWindsor Clinical Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAvoidant personality disorderPersonality disordersBorderline personality disorderAnxietyPsychotherapistSubstance abusePersonalityDepression (economics)Flexibility (engineering)Clinical psychologyMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryCognitionPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major depressive disorder is among the most frequently diagnosed mental disorders and is often accompanied by other disorders such as anxiety or substance abuse. As a result of a complicated tangle of comorbidities, psychotherapy in such cases can become quite demanding. The present case study presents and discusses the challenges represented by a complex case of psychotherapy, focusing on ongoing modifications of the clinical hypotheses and therapeutic approach. This process is illustrated through the case of Andy, a 44-year-old man suffering from depressive disorder, social phobia, substance dependency, and an avoidant personality disorder. This case draws attention to the quality of the relationship and the flexibility and adaptation required from the therapist while depicting an integrative way of working therapeutically with complex cases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207