Metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT): a systematic meta-review of its effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT) targets cognitive biases implicated in the pathogenesis of psychosis, e.g., jumping to conclusions, overconfidence in errors, and inflexibility. This systematic meta-review investigated the current meta-analytic evidence for the effectiveness of MCT with respect to core symptom features in schizophrenia (i.e., positive symptoms, delusions and hallucinations, negative symptoms, and overall psychotic symptoms). Data sources This meta-review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023447442) on July 28, 2023. Articles were searched across five electronic databases from January 1, 2007 to September 1, 2023. Study selection Meta-analyses addressing metacognitive interventions targeting psychotic symptoms were eligible for meta-review. Data extraction and synthesis PRISMA guidelines were followed when applicable. Data extraction was done independently by two authors (AM, AS). A random-effects model was used to pool data within meta-analyses. Main outcomes and measures Main outcomes were levels/severity of positive symptoms, delusions and hallucinations, negative symptoms, and overall psychotic symptoms after intervention. Results Eight meta-analyses and two re-analyses were included for meta-review. A total of eight analyses provided sufficient data for analysis. Significant evidence was found in favor of MCT for positive symptoms (85.71%; N = 35, g = 0.473 [0.295, 0.651], I 2 = 74.64), delusions (60%; N = 24, g = 0.639 [0.389, 0.889], I 2 = 80.01), hallucinations (100%; N = 9, g = 0.265 [0.098, 0.432], I 2 = 6.1), negative symptoms (100%; N = 17, g = 0.233 [0.1, 0.366], I 2 = 34.78), and overall symptoms (50%; N = 37, g = 0.392 [0.245, 0.538], I 2 = 65.73). None of the meta-analyses included a large enough sample size to meet the criteria for ‘suggestive’, ‘convincing’, or ‘highly convincing’ evidence according to metaumbrella.org guidelines (required sample size > 1000 cases). None of the meta-analyses scored ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ on methodological quality. Meta-analyses with significant results were more recent and/or considered more primary studies. Conclusions and relevance There is consistent evidence that MCT ameliorates positive symptoms and delusions in schizophrenia.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".