MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319741424 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1074972

RETRACTED: Therapeutic interventions impact brain function and promote post-traumatic growth in adults living with post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

2023· review· en· W4319741424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zachary P. Pierce, Emily Johnson, Isabelle A. Kim, Brianna E. Lear, A. Michaela Mast, Jessica M. Black

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions;
Date10/1/2024 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTraumatic stressPsychological interventionMagnetic resonance imagingTraumatic brain injuryMeta-analysisFunctional magnetic resonance imagingClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistNeuroscienceMedicineRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The present systematic review and meta-analysis explores the impacts of cognitive processing therapy (CPT), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), and prolonged exposure (PE) therapy on neural activity underlying the phenomenon of post-traumatic growth for adult trauma survivors. Methods We utilized the following databases to conduct our systematic search: Boston College Libraries, PubMed, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. Our initial search yielded 834 studies for initial screening. We implemented seven eligibility criteria to vet articles for full-text review. Twenty-nine studies remained for full-text review after our systematic review process was completed. Studies were subjected to several levels of analysis. First, pre-and post- test post-traumatic growth inventory (PTGI) scores were collected from all studies and analyzed through a forest plot using Hedges’ g. Next, Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates and t-scores were collected and analyzed using an Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) to measure brain function. T-scores and Hedges’ g values were then analyzed using Pearson correlations to determine if there were any relationships between brain function and post-traumatic growth for each modality. Lastly, all studies were subjected to a bubble plot and Egger’s test to assess risk of publication bias across the review sample. Results Forest plot results indicated that all three interventions had a robust effect on PTGI scores. ALE meta-analysis results indicated that EMDR exhibited the largest effect on brain function, with the R thalamus (t = 4.23, p < 0.001) showing robust activation, followed closely by the R precuneus (t = 4.19, p < 0.001). Pearson correlation results showed that EMDR demonstrated the strongest correlation between increased brain function and PTGI scores (r = 0.910, p < 0.001). Qualitative review of the bubble plot indicated no obvious traces of publication bias, which was corroborated by the results of the Egger’s test (p = 0.127). Discussion Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CPT, EMDR, and PE each exhibited a robust effect on PTG impacts across the course of treatment. However, when looking closer at comparative analyses of neural activity (ALE) and PTGI scores (Pearson correlation), EMDR exhibited a more robust effect on PTG impacts and brain function than CPT and PE.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.024
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207