Comparing the magnitude of improvement for patients with and without personality disorders in open-ended psychotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychotherapy tends to produce meaningful and sustained positive changes for individuals suffering from a mental illness. A salient distinction can be made between patients with a Personality Disorder (PD) and those without. There is some evidence that patients with PD have poorer treatment outcomes, but the majority of these studies are from time-limited interventions that might be less suited for patients with PD. In contrast, the present study provided open-ended psychotherapy to a sample of patients (N = 370), half of which had at least one PD before treatment. The therapists received instruction to organize their treatments in cooperation with patients so that therapy was tailored to each patient’s individual needs and characteristics. The results revealed that patients with a PD demonstrated equal symptomatic improvement and greater interpersonal improvement compared to patients without a PD. Similarly, observer-rated diagnostic changes were equivalent across the two groups. Both groups demonstrated enduring improvements when assessed at a two-and-half-year follow-up. The degree of personality pathology was positively related to the magnitude of change, i.e. patients with more severe personality problems demonstrated greater gains in the open-ended treatment format.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".