Smartphone-based Monitoring and cognition Modification Against Recurrence of Depression (SMARD): An RCT of Memory Bias Modification Training vs. Cognitive Control Training vs. Attention Bias Modification Training in remitted recurrently depressed patients with 1.5 year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) has a 50-80% recurrence rate highlighting the urgent need for more efficient recurrence prevention programs. Currently, recurrences are often identified too late, while existing preventive strategies may not sufficiently address ethio-patho-physiological mechanisms for recurrence. Negative memory bias (the tendency to better remember negative than positive events), negative attention bias (selective attention favoring mood-congruent information), and cognitive control deficits are important factors involved in the onset, maintenance, and recurrence of depressive episodes. METHODS: Here we describe the protocol for the Smartphone-based Monitoring and cognition Modification Against Recurrence of Depression (SMARD) study, aiming to investigate different forms of cognitive training programs administered via smartphones, in order to develop a second-generation recurrence prevention program. In addition, we will gather Experience Sampling Method (ESM) assessments during a 6-day period, and during the follow-up period we will obtain behavioral data on (social) activities with BEHAPP, a smartphone-based Mobile Passive Monitoring application for remote behavioral monitoring to identify behavioral changes indicative of an imminent depressive episode. In a randomized controlled trial, SMARD will compare the effects of a smartphone-based Memory Bias Modification Training (MBT), Cognitive Control Training (CCT), and Attention Bias Modification Training (ABT) versus cognitive domain-specific (active-) sham trainings in 120 remitted MDD-patients with recurrent-MDD. Over the course of three weeks, participants receive multiple daily training sessions. Thereafter, participants will be followed up for 1.5 years with 3-monthly interviews to assess recurrences. DISCUSSION: The SMARD study aims to 1. assess the effects of the cognitive training programs versus their training-specific (active-) sham conditions on changes in memory, cognitive control dysfunction and attention; 2. relate training effects to neural networks previously identified in (recurrence of) MDD (therefore we obtain functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ((f)MRI) scans before and after the training in a subset of participants); 3. link baseline and change in memory, cognitive control, attention and neural functioning, and ESM data to prospective recurrences; 4. examine whether passive smartphone-use monitoring can be used for prediction of recurrences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL-OMON26184 and NL-OMON27513. Registered 12 August 2021-Retrospectively registered, https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/26184 en https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/27513 .
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".