Change in Defense Mechanisms and Depression in a Pilot Study of Antidepressive Medications Plus 20 Sessions of Psychotherapy for Recurrent Major Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment studies of major depression commonly focus on symptoms, leaving aside change in putative psychological risk factors. This pilot study examines the relationship between changes in eight depressive defenses and depressive symptoms. Twelve adults with acute recurrent major depression were given antidepressive medications and randomized to 20 sessions of either cognitive behavioral therapy or dynamic psychotherapy and followed for 1 year. Defenses were assessed using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS) and Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ) at intake, termination, and 1-year follow-up. Depression improved highly significantly on both the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, respectively, eight (67%) and nine (75%) patients attained recovery by 1 year. Depressive defenses improved significantly by termination (mean ES = 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-2.16), but retrogressed somewhat by 1 year. A mean of 12.17% (SD = 10.60) depressive defenses remained; only five subjects (50%) attained normative levels. Although causal relationships were not established, depressive defenses are promising candidates for mediating treatment effects on outcome of major depression.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".