WHO treatment guideline for mental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) recently issued updated guidelines for treating mental health conditions, emphasizing evidence-based manual-guided psychotherapeutic treatments.1 We applaud the WHO's effort to broaden access to evidence-based psychotherapy. Yet, we are concerned that the recommendations predominantly endorse behavior therapy (BT) and cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) methods, for both adults and young people. This selection overlooks the significant evidence supporting other therapeutic approaches, including but not limited to psychodynamic therapy, except for a brief acknowledgment of its use in treating adult depression. Recent high-quality research reviews, which have been published in high-ranking and leading scientific journals2, have demonstrated that manual-guided psychodynamic therapy meets the updated American Psychological Association's (APA) criteria for empirically supported treatments 3, based on several comprehensive meta-analyses.2 This endorsement covers the psychodynamic treatment of depressive, anxiety, somatoform, and personality disorders, with clinically meaningful effects over controls and no meaningful differences in efficacy compared to other evidence-based treatments and confidence intervals comparable to, for example, CBT.2 The quality (certainty) of evidence was comparable to that of the evidence on which the WHO based their recommendations, for example, for depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, or self-harm and suicide.4, p. XVIII-XXX In line with APA’s criteria for evidence-based treatments, this substantial body of evidence for psychodynamic therapy was shown to warrant a “strong recommendation” of psychodynamic therapy in the conditions listed above.2
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
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".