MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387490710 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.09.032

Phenomenological Characteristics of Attention Bias Modification Apps: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· article· en· W4387490710 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoveltySystematic reviewAttentional biasPopularityComputer scienceAnxietyMental healthCognitive psychologyPsychotherapistPsychologyMEDLINEPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attentional bias has been purported to be responsible for several psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and substance abuse. To address the problems experienced by patients, attention bias modification training (ABMT) is commonly used as a form of treatment. Yet, the accessibility of this treatment still remains a challenge. Recent studies have proposed app-based ABMT leveraging the popularity and convenient use of smartphones. While past reviews have explored the design methods and their efficacy, there remains a lack of systematic evaluation of the phenomenological characteristics of the ABMTs offered. This study used systematic review and meta-analytic procedures to investigate the effect of ABMT on attention biases and mental health symptoms. The novelty of the study is the investigation of the phenomenological characteristic of app-based ABMT that contributes to its efficacy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.220 · 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