Treatment responder status and time to response as a function of hazardous drinking among active-duty military receiving variable-length cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A common concern is whether individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and hazardous drinking will respond to PTSD treatment or need a higher dose. In a sample of active-duty military, we examined the impact of hazardous drinking on cognitive processing therapy (CPT) outcomes and whether number of sessions to reach good end-state or dropout differed by drinking status. METHOD: ) or nonresponders if they completed 24 sessions or 18 weeks of treatment without good end-state. Survival analyses were used to compare time to dropout or good end-state between those with and without hazardous drinking. RESULTS: Those with hazardous drinking were as likely as those without to reach good end-state and no more likely to drop out. There were no differences in number of sessions to reach good end-state or dropout. On a gold-standard assessment, those with hazardous drinking evidenced more PTSD symptom reduction than those without. The overall proportion of participants with hazardous drinking decreased (30.7% to 18.6%), as did mean number of drinks per drinking day and drinks on the heaviest drinking day among those initially drinking hazardously. CONCLUSIONS: Results support using CPT for military personnel with PTSD and hazardous drinking and indicate that those with hazardous drinking can benefit from PTSD treatment without additional treatment sessions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".