Metacognitive training for adolescents with psychosis: A multiple case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive biases may be one of the explaining factor underlying psychotic symptoms like delusions and hallucinations. Metacognitive training (MCT) was demonstrated, in adults with schizophrenia, to reduce these cognitive biases. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no research on adolescents with psychosis. The current study aimed at assessing the feasibility, treatment adherence and its benefi cial effects on psychotic symptoms, depression, social functioning and self-esteem of a MCT. Participants were fi ve psychotic adolescents with psychosis, aged 16-18, who attended the Day Care Unit for Adolescents (DCUA). The MCT, delivered in group, corresponds to 2x8 modules, lasting between 45 and 60 minutes once a week. To measure MCT's effi ciency, the Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), the Health of Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescent (HoNOSCA), the depression scale of Calgary and the self-esteem scale of Rosenberg have been used. The results of the 5 patients indicate that MCT is feasible and the treatment adherence is moderate. The schedule of the MCT needs to be adapted to the availability of the participants. At a descriptive level, the MCT allows to reduce psychotic and depressive symptoms (PANSS & Calgary) as well as to improve the social functioning (SOFAS & HoNOSCA) and self-esteem (Rosenberg). To sum up, MCT seem to be an interesting alternative and/or a good additional treatment to reduce cognitive bias, psychotic symptoms as well as improving social functioning
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".