Evaluating an Internet-based Program for Anxious Youth: a Pilot RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot trial aims to collect the necessary data to inform the planning of a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of the Internet-based CBT program Breathe (Being Real, Easing Anxiety: Tools Helping Electronically). Adolescents will be randomly assigned to either 8 weeks of Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) with telephone and e-mail support (the Breathe program), or a control (minimal intervention) group with 8 weeks of access to a static webpage with general anxiety resources and information. The pilot RCT will (1) define a minimal clinically important difference, as defined by adolescents, for the primary outcome measure, (2) determine a sample size for a full-scale RCT, (3) estimate recruitment and retention rates to determine the number of study sites needed, (4) measure intervention acceptability to inform critical intervention changes, (5) determine the use of co-interventions, and (6) conduct a cost-consequence analysis to inform a cost-effectiveness analysis for a full-scale RCT.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".