MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887947450 · doi:10.17863/cam.50108

Positive Imagery-Based Cognitive Bias Modification as a Web-Based Treatment Tool for Depressed Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

2015· article· en· W6887947450 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueApollo (University of Cambridge) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of OxfordLupina FoundationWellcome TrustNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAnhedoniaCognitive bias modificationPsychopathologyDepression (economics)CognitionRandomized controlled trialMental imageCognitive bias

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depression is a global health problem requiring treatment innovation. Targeting neglected cognitive aspects may provide a useful route. We tested a cognitive-training paradigm using positive mental imagery (imagery cognitive bias modification, imagery CBM), developed via experimental psychopathology studies, in a randomized controlled trial. Training was delivered via the Internet to 150 individuals with current major depression. Unexpectedly, there was no significant advantage for imagery CBM compared with a closely matched control for depression symptoms as a whole in the full sample. In exploratory analyses, compared with the control, imagery CBM significantly improved anhedonia over the intervention and improved depression symptoms as a whole for those participants with fewer than five episodes of depression and those who engaged to a threshold level of imagery. Results suggest avenues for improving imagery CBM to inform low-intensity treatment tools for depression. Anhedonia may be a useful treatment target for future work.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApollo (University of Cambridge)Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207