Prognosis Prediction Using Therapeutic Agreement of Video Conference–Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Retrospective Secondary Analysis of a Single-Arm Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The therapist-patient therapeutic alliance is known to be an important factor in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, findings by previous studies for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder (PD), and social anxiety disorder (SAD) have not been consistent regarding whether this alliance provides symptomatic improvements. Objective This study investigated predictors of symptom improvement in patients receiving CBT via video conferencing. Methods A total of 29 patients who participated in a previous clinical trial were recruited for the current study. Therapeutic alliance and clinical background in patients with OCD, PD, and SAD were measured at first session or the eighth session, which were calculated by multiple regression analyses to estimate the impact on therapeutic response percentage change. Results The multiple regression analyses showed that, among the independent variables, only patients’ agreement in the therapeutic alliance remained viable, as other variables were a best fit for the excluded model (P=.002). The results show that patients’ agreement on therapeutic goals and tasks explains the prognosis, as the normalization factor beta was 0.54 (SE 32.73; 95% CI 1.23-5.17; P=.002) and the adjusted R2 was .266. Conclusions Patients' agreement on therapeutic goals and tasks predicts improvement after CBT via video conferencing. Trial Registration UMIN Clinical Trial Repository UMIN000026609; https://tinyurl.com/ye6dcbwt
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".