Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Group Therapy versus Group Hypnotherapy on Brain/Behavioral Systems of Social Phobia Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objective: Social anxiety disorder, which involves excessive anxiety of social situation due to fear of negative evaluation, is a debilitating disorder that leads to social dysfunction.The purpose of this study is to investigate Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Group Therapy (CBGT) versus Group Hypnotherapy (GHt) on Brain/Behavioral Systems of Social Phobia Patients. Materials & Methods:The numbers of 30 subjects were divided into two groups receiving either CBGT or GHt.The questionnaires of brain / behavioral systems (GWPQ) and social phobia (SPIN) were administered in two phases (before and after intervention).Results: Both therapy approaches caused significant changes in the level of social phobia and brain/behavioral systems activity.The alterations in brain-behavioral subsystems (BIS and FFFS) in the Extinction and Flight components were in favor of hypnotherapy (P<0.05). Conclusion:The findings from the present research provide evidence that due to alterations in brain/behavioral systems associated with the social phobia, hypnotherapy can be considered as a powerful approach treating social phobia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".