Cognitive Remediation for Outpatients With Recurrent Mood Disorders: A Feasibility Study
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
Current first-line treatments for mood disorders often improve mood symptoms but do little to reduce cognitive and functional impairment. This 10-week, uncontrolled, feasibility study evaluated a cognitive remediation (CR) intervention for individuals with recurrent mood disorders. Adults with recurrent major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder, who had recently been treated and discharged from specialized mental health services, were eligible for inclusion. Twenty patients completed the CR intervention, which involved weekly individual sessions with a therapist, as well as the practice of computerized CR exercises between sessions. The study assessed the acceptability of the assessment and treatment as well as outcomes in terms of mood symptoms, general functioning, and cognitive functioning. Patients reported that they were generally satisfied with the CR intervention and were close to reaching the recommended amount of practice between therapist-led sessions. The retention rate from baseline to posttreatment was 87%. When within-group effects were examined, large effect sizes over time (>0.9) were seen for 2 cognitive variables that measured executive function: Category Switching-Total Words and Total Switching Score. Findings from the current feasibility study will inform the development of a large randomized controlled trial of an adapted version of the CR intervention for mood disorders assessed in this preliminary study, with the goal of translating the intervention into clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it