MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399766053 · doi:10.32920/26052841

Sudden Gains in PTSD Symptoms and Social Functioning in Cognitive Processing Therapy for Post traumatic Stress Disorder

2024· preprint· en· W4399766053 on OpenAlexaff
Iris Sijercic

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic stressCognitive processing therapyPsychologySocial functioningCognitionClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryCognitive behavioral therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudden gains (SGs) are rapid improvements in symptoms between two consecutive therapy sessions, and have been shown to relate to treatment outcomes. This dissertation investigated SGs in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms, interpersonal relationship functioning, and social role functioning, in a Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) implementation effectiveness trial. This was the first study to the author's knowledge to investigate SGs beyond primary symptoms in CPT. The three forms of SGs were examined to better understand their timing, frequency, overlap, and how they each predict outcomes over time. The results indicated that PTSD SGs occurred more often and at different sessions than SGs in facets of social functioning. Most individuals experienced only one form of SG and there were no significant clinical or demographic differences in those who had PTSD only SGs, social functioning only SGs, or both symptom and functioning SGs. PTSD SGs and interpersonal relationship functioning SGs both predicted changes in PTSD symptoms and interpersonal difficulties over time, but not changes in social role functioning. SGs in social role functioning predicted all three forms of outcomes. The findings suggested that there are multiple forms of SGs beyond primary symptom changes that CPT aims to target, and these various SGs are all predictive of patient outcomes. Clinicians should highlight various SGs that patients may experience to further enhance outcomes. Additional research is needed to better understand the cause of different forms of SGs, additional forms of SGs beyond those measured in the present study, and the most appropriate ways to define SGs or comparison groups.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→