A randomized controlled trial of Internet-delivered CBT and attention bias modification for early intervention of depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conceptualization and empirical knowledge base related to major depression has increased dramatically in recent years. We now have well-developed and validated models of depression from a range of theoretical perspectives. These models have significantly enhanced the development of effective treatments and preventative interventions. Although various prevention programs are available, Web-based protocols can enhance accessibility to evidence-based prevention programs. The current study involved a randomized controlled trial focused on the prevention and treatment of depression in high-risk first- and second-year undergraduate students. Three Internet-delivered preventative programs were compared: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; MoodGym), attentional bias modification, and an active attentional control condition. Participants ( n = 350) completed symptom measurement pre- and post-intervention (6 weeks) and again at a 4-month follow-up, when they were also administered a structured diagnostic interview. Participants in the CBT condition showed more dramatic and continuous depressive symptom improvement between baseline and follow-up than did participants in the other two conditions. In addition, significantly fewer individuals in CBT condition met diagnostic criteria for major depression at follow-up than in the other conditions. These findings have important implications for future early intervention research and practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it