Metacognitive training for schizophrenia patients (MCT): A pilot study on feasibility, treatment adherence, and subjective efficacy.
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
Objectives: A plethora of studies has confirmed that several cognitive biases (e.g., attributional style, jumping to conclu-sions, bias against disconfirmatory evidence, theory of mind, over-confidence in errors, need for closure, and low self-esteem) may play a pathogenetic role in the emergence and/or maintenance of the disorder, particularly delusions. The present study explored the safety, acceptance and subjective efficacy of a newly developed intervention program aimed at increasing awareness of, and possibly ameliorating, cognitive and behavioural biases in schizophrenia. Metacognitive training (MCT) builds upon inferences drawn from basic research on cognition and metacognition in schizophrenia. Methods: Forty outpatients were randomized to MCT and a control intervention (cognitive remediation, CogPack). Treatment in either group was performed twice weekly for an entire duration of 4 weeks (i.e., 8 sessions each lasting 45-60 minutes). At the end of the training, participants were asked to evaluate the subjective utility and efficacy of the program. In addition, treatment adherence and adverse events were documented. Results: MCT yielded superior scores relative to CogPack on several subjective parameters. Treatment adherence was comparable and no adverse events were noted during either intervention. Conclusions: The present study underscores the feasibility and acceptance of metacogni-tive training in psychosis. Future trials are warranted to verify the impact of MCT on the amelioration of metacogni-
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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