One-year randomized trial comparing virtual reality-assisted therapy to cognitive–behavioral therapy for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gold-standard cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for psychosis offers at best modest effects. With advances in technology, virtual reality (VR) therapies for auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH), such as AVATAR therapy (AT) and VR-assisted therapy (VRT), are amid a new wave of relational approaches that may heighten effects. Prior trials have shown greater effects of these therapies on AVH up to a 24-week follow-up. However, no trial has compared them to a recommended active treatment with a 1-year follow-up. We performed a pilot randomized comparative trial evaluating the short- and long-term efficacy of VRT over CBT for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Patients were randomized to VRT (n = 37) or CBT (n = 37). Clinical assessments were administered before and after each intervention and at follow-up periods up to 12 months. Between and within-group changes in psychiatric symptoms were assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Short-term findings showed that both interventions produced significant improvements in AVH severity and depressive symptoms. Although results did not show a statistically significant superiority of VRT over CBT for AVH, VRT did achieve larger effects particularly on overall AVH (d = 1.080 for VRT and d = 0.555 for CBT). Furthermore, results suggested a superiority of VRT over CBT on affective symptoms. VRT also showed significant results on persecutory beliefs and quality of life. Effects were maintained up to the 1-year follow-up. VRT highlights the future of patient-tailored approaches that may show benefits over generic CBT for voices. A fully powered single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing VRT to CBT is underway.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".