Change and sustained recovery in defense mechanisms and depression in a pilot study of antidepressant medications plus up to 18 months of psychotherapy for recurrent major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment studies of major depression commonly focus on symptoms rather than changes in psychological risk factors. This pilot study examines the relationship between changes in eight defenses specifically related to depression, called depressive defenses, and depressive symptoms. Thirty adults with acute, recurrent major depression were given antidepressant medications (ADM) and randomized to up to 18 months of either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dynamic, or supportive psychotherapy and followed for 4.5 years. Defenses were assessed using the observer-rated Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS) at intake and 18 months. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 item version (HRSD-17) and the Beck Depression Inventory-2nd version (BDI-II) assessed depression periodically. Depressive symptoms decreased significantly on both the HRSD-17 (effect size [ES]=-1.03) and BDI (ES=-1.90). Overall defensive functioning (ODF) increased significantly (ES=.85), improving in 76% of participants. Similarly, the mean proportion of depressive defenses decreased significantly by termination (ES=-.62), although the overall mean remained above that generally seen in healthy adults. Twenty-four percent of participants attained this threshold at termination. After controlling for initial levels, at termination depressive defenses correlated significantly with HRSD-17 (rs=.44, p=.02), and BDI (rs=.33, p=.095). Although causal relationships were not established, depressive defenses were consistently related to changes in depressive symptoms, suggesting that they are promising mediators of treatment effects for major depression. Clinically, defenses are readily identifiable and can serve as important foci in treatment. Finally, levels of depressive defenses that exceed healthy norms may reflect a continuing level of risk for current or future depressive symptoms or episodes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".