A comparison of compensatory and restorative cognitive interventions in early psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This randomized trial examined the relative effectiveness of primarily compensatory and primarily restorative cognitive interventions in an early psychosis population. A total of 56 patients were randomized to one of two treatments which were applied for four months with a five month follow up assessment. Comparisons were between (1) Cognitive Adaptation Training (CAT) - a treatment that uses environmental supports and weekly home visits to compensate for cognitive challenges and improve community functioning and (2) Action Based Cognitive Remediation (ABCR) - a treatment involving computerized cognitive drill and practice exercises, simulations, goal setting, and behavioral activation. Linear mixed effects models demonstrated significant effects on community functioning for both CAT and ABCR without a difference between conditions (n = 39), with an indication of greater gains at follow up in the ABCR group (n = 31). Improvements in symptomatology were less robust with mixed findings across neurocognition metrics. This study concluded that both CAT and ABCR hold promise as interventions for early intervention psychosis populations but more work is needed to identify illness severity, subtype and contextual considerations that might indicate an emphasis on more compensatory versus more restorative cognitive interventions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".