Feasibility of a Cognitive-Behavioral Couple Therapy Intervention for Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 9.15). The CBCT sessions were video recorded and independently coded for treatment manual adherence and therapists reported on the completion of in-session and homework exercises. Participants completed measures of treatment satisfaction following the intervention as well as dyadic sexual desire (women with SIAD only) and sexual distress prior to treatment, post-treatment, and at 6 months follow-up. The therapists exhibited a high level of adherence to the treatment manual and couples had high rates of homework completion. Moreover, couples had low dropout rates, high attendance rates, and reported moderately high global treatment satisfaction and high satisfaction with virtual care. Women with SIAD reported large improvements in dyadic sexual desire and sexual distress from pre-treatment to post-treatment and pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up. Partners reported moderate and small improvements in sexual distress for post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, respectively. Results support the feasibility of an evidence-based CBCT intervention for SIAD and the need for a randomized clinical trial of the intervention.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it