Pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial of cognitive–behavioural therapy for functional cognitive disorder after concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) may be common after a concussion, and no evidence-based treatment options are available. The current study evaluated the feasibility of a novel cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) protocol tailored to FCD after concussion. Methods: Participants were randomised to CBT (n=11) or the current standard of care, cognitive rehabilitation (n=13). Both interventions consisted of eleven 50 min manualised videoconference sessions. CBT involved cognitive reappraisal and exposure-based strategies. Cognitive rehabilitation involved traditional memory compensation strategy training. Prespecified feasibility criteria were set for recruitment, perceived credibility, patient adherence, therapist protocol compliance and retention. The primary efficacy outcome was the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire-Satisfaction (MMQ-S). The first five CBT completers completed a semistructured interview about their experience with the intervention. Results: Most feasibility benchmarks were met, as 86% of invited patients consented, 96% of participants rated their intervention as credible, participants attended 96% of sessions, therapists covered all essential content in 94% of sessions and 100% of participants completed the post-treatment evaluation. Both groups improved on the MMQ-S. Post-treatment MMQ-S scores were similar between groups (Cohen's d=-0.05 (95% CI [-0.86, 0.75])). Two themes resulted from the qualitative data analysis, which highlighted aspects of the CBT interventions that participants valued. Implications: This pilot trial supports the feasibility of CBT tailored to FCD after concussion and suggests that patients with FCD may benefit from either CBT or standard cognitive rehabilitation. A larger trial is needed to evaluate the efficacy of these interventions for FCD after concussion and potentially FCD in other clinical contexts. Trial registration number: NCT05581810.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".