Tratamientos psicológicos y farmacológicos de la fobia social en Europa: un estudio meta-analítico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este trabajo se presentan los resultados de un metaanalisis sobre la eficacia de las intervenciones psicologicas y farmacologicas en la fobia social. Se incluyen un total de 24 articulos europeos que cumplieron con los criterios de seleccion, dando lugar a 55 estudios independientes, sobre los que se calculo la diferencia media tipificada entre las medias del pretest y del postest. Los tamanos del efecto en el postest (d+ = 1.045) y en el seguimiento (d+ = 1.105) reflejaron una clara eficacia de las intervenciones sobre la fobia social, asi como sobre los sintomas de depresion, ansiedad, obsesiones, inadaptacion y miedo a la evaluacion negativa. No se hallaron diferencias significativas entre tratamientos psicologicos y farmacologicos. No obstante, la combinacion de reestructuracion cognitiva con entrenamiento en habilidades sociales, alcanzo los mejores resultados (d+ = 1.621) seguida de los psicofarmacos (d+ = 1.067). Finalmente, se discuten las implicaciones clinicas de los resultados.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".