A randomized controlled trial of cognitive analytic versus compassion-focused therapy for PTSD in Iran-Iraq War Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common debilitating mental illness with a substantial burden on individuals and society. The authors aimed to compare the effects of cognitive analytic therapy and compassion-focused therapy on PTSD. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial with three parallel arms conducted from February 2022 to February 2023 in an outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Forty-five war Veterans with a confirmed diagnosis of PTSD were included. The primary outcome was a re-experiencing score, and the secondary outcomes were avoidance, hyperarousal, depression, anxiety, and numbness scores. The cognitive analytic therapy group attended a weekly 12-session program, while the compassion-focused therapy group attended a weekly 8-session program. The control group received treatment as usual. Results: = 1.24) from baseline to the end of the study in favour of compassion-focused therapy. All effect sizes were large for both interventions, indicating clinically important improvements. Discussion: Both cognitive analytic therapy and compassion-focused therapy are effective in treating posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. However, compassion-focused therapy is more effective in reducing avoidance and 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".