Web-Based Cognitive Bias Modification Program for Young People With Social Anxiety and Hazardous Alcohol Use: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interpretation bias modification (IBM) and approach bias modification (ApBM) cognitive retraining interventions can be efficacious adjunctive treatments for improving social anxiety and alcohol use problems. However, previous trials have not examined the combination of these interventions in a young, comorbid sample. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a web-based IBM+ApBM program for young adults with social anxiety and hazardous alcohol use ("Re-Train Your Brain") when delivered in conjunction with treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: The study involved a 3-arm randomized controlled pilot trial in which treatment-seeking young adults (aged 18-30 y) with co-occurring social anxiety and hazardous alcohol use were randomized to receive (1) the "integrated" Re-Train Your Brain program, where each session included both IBM and ApBM (50:50 ratio), plus TAU (35/100, 35%); (2) the "alternating" Re-Train Your Brain program, where each session focused on IBM or ApBM in an alternating pattern, plus TAU (32/100, 32%); or (3) TAU only (33/100, 33%). Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability, and secondary efficacy outcomes included changes in cognitive biases, social anxiety symptoms, and alcohol use. Assessments were conducted at baseline, after the intervention period (6 weeks after baseline), and 12 weeks after baseline. RESULTS: Both Re-Train Your Brain program formats were feasible and acceptable for young adults. When coupled with TAU, both integrated and alternating programs resulted in greater self-reported improvements than TAU only in anxiety interpretation biases (at the 6-week follow-up; Cohen d=0.80 and Cohen d=0.89) and comorbid interpretation biases (at the 12-week follow-up; Cohen d=1.53 and Cohen d=1.67). In addition, the alternating group reported larger improvements over the control group in generalized social anxiety symptoms (at the 12-week follow-up; Cohen d=0.83) and alcohol cravings (at the 6-week follow-up; Cohen d=0.81). There were null effects on all other variables and no differences between the intervention groups in efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Should these findings be replicated in a larger randomized controlled trial, Re-Train Your Brain has the potential to be a scalable, low-cost, and non-labor-intensive adjunct intervention for targeting interpretation and comorbidity biases as well as generalized anxiety and alcohol-related outcomes in the real world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001273976; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364131. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/28667.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".