MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048919769 · doi:10.1177/1744629520942374

Cognitive behavioral therapy in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: A case study of two young adults with an anxiety disorder

2020· article· en· W3048919769 on OpenAlexaff
Petra C. M. Buijs, Anne S. Bassett, David Gold, Erik Boot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disabilities · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyCognitionClinical psychologyCognitive behavioral therapyPsychologyCognitive therapyCognitive flexibilityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of anxiety disorders is high in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS), an under-recognized multisystem condition. Prominent features include an array of somatic, cognitive, and neuropsychiatric disorders. This case study reports for the first time on the application of individual cognitive behavioral therapy in 22q11.2DS. METHOD: Two young adults with 22q11.2DS and an anxiety disorder received cognitive behavioral therapy based on standard protocols. Feasibility and efficacy were assessed through clinical interviews, clinical observations by the therapist, and questionnaires. RESULTS: Both participants were engaged in the therapy and showed understanding of basic cognitive behavioral therapy principles. However, they did not show a clear clinical improvement. Adjustments to the protocol were required, including increased flexibility and a proactive approach by the therapist, additional time per session, written information, and significant involvement of the family and multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may help identify required adaptations to cognitive behavioral therapy protocols for this and similar genetic conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207