Efficacy of the Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (<scp>CALM</scp>) individual psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer: A single‐blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether the Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) therapy is superior to a non-manualized supportive psycho-oncological counselling intervention (SPI). METHODS: Adult patients with advanced cancer and ≥9 points on the PHQ-9 and/or ≥5 points on the DT were randomized to CALM or SPI. We hypothesized that CALM patients would report significantly less depression (primary outcome) on the BDI-II and the PHQ-9 6 months after baseline compared to SPI patients. RESULTS: From 329 eligible patients, 206 participated (61.2% female; age: M = 57.9 [SD = 11.7]; 84.5% UICC IV stage). Of them, 99 were assigned to CALM and 107 to SPI. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed significantly less depressive symptoms at 6 months than at baseline (P < .001 for BDI-II and PHQ-9), but participants in the CALM and SPI group did not differ in depression severity (BDI-II: P = .62, PHQ-9: P = .998). Group differences on secondary outcomes were statistically not significant either. CONCLUSIONS: CALM therapy was associated with reduction in depressive symptoms over time but this improvement was not statistically significant different than that obtained within SPI group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".