MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224279724 · doi:10.1177/08919887221090220

Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression in Parkinson’s Disease: A Feasibility Study

2022· article· en· W4224279724 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Koszycki, Monica Taljaard, Cary S. Kogan, Jacques Bradwejn, David A. Grimes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalOttawa HospitalMontfort HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpersonal psychotherapyDepression (economics)MoodStressorClinical psychologyInterpersonal communicationPsychologyAttendanceRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryMedicinePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals living with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience interpersonal stressors that contribute to depressive risk. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) emphasizes the bidirectional relationship between interpersonal stressors and mood may therefore be a suitable treatment for PD-depression. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of delivering 12 sessions of IPT to depressed PD patients and explore the need for modifications. A secondary aim was to obtain descriptive information about efficacy outcomes. The study used a pre-post design without a comparison group. Participants were 12 PD patients with a major depressive disorder. IPT was well accepted and tolerated by patients and required minimal modifications. Compliance with session attendance and completion of study questionnaires were excellent and treatment satisfaction was high. Depression scores declined from baseline to endpoint, with 7 patients meeting criteria for remission at endpoint. Findings are encouraging and a larger randomized controlled trial is currently underway to ascertain if IPT is an efficacious treatment for PD-depression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207