Effects of family intervention on psychosocial functioning and mood symptoms of youth at high risk for bipolar disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Family-focused therapy (FFT) is associated with reduced rates of mood episodes among youth at high risk for bipolar disorder (BD). In a randomized trial of FFT compared to a psychoeducation-only treatment (enhanced care, EC), we sought to determine if changes in psychosocial functioning mediate mood improvements among high-risk youth. METHOD: 119 youths with active mood symptoms and a family history of BD were randomized to either 4 months of FFT or EC. Participants were rated on mood symptom severity and provided self-ratings of psychosocial functioning across domains of family, social-emotional, and school functioning. Repeated measures mixed modeling and bootstrapped mediational analyses evaluated the effects of treatment conditions and psychosocial functioning on mood improvements immediately posttreatment and over 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: < .01; 95% CI [-0.55, -0.02]. The effects of FFT versus EC on family functioning were stronger among youth with comorbid anxiety and externalizing disorders than among youth without these comorbid disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a temporal link between changes in youths' perceptions of family functioning and improvements in depressive symptoms among high-risk youth in FFT. Family conflict and cohesion are important treatment targets for youth who present with early signs of BD. Future studies should examine whether changes in observational measures of family interaction precede improvements in mood among high-risk youth. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".