MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive training of self-initiation of semantic encoding strategies in schizophrenia: A pilot study

2015· article· en· W787061247 on OpenAlexaff
Synthia Guimond, Martín Lepage

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychological Rehabilitation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncoding (memory)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyEpisodic memorySemantic memoryCognitive trainingTask (project management)CognitionCognitive psychologyCognitive remediation therapyWorking memory trainingSpatial memoryWorking memoryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Available cognitive remediation interventions have a significant but relatively small to moderate impact on episodic memory in schizophrenia. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of a brief novel episodic memory training targeting the self-initiation of semantic encoding strategies. To select patients with such deficits, 28 participants with schizophrenia performed our Semantic Encoding Memory Task (SEMT) that provides a measure of self-initiated semantic encoding strategies. This task identified a deficit in 13 participants who were then offered two 60-minute training sessions one week apart. After the training, patients performed an alternate version of the SEMT. The CVLT-II (a standardised measure of semantic encoding strategies) and the BVMT-R (a control spatial memory task) were used to quantify memory pre- and post-training. After the training, participants were significantly better at self-initiating semantic encoding strategies in the SEMT (p = .004) and in the CVLT-II (p = .002). No significant differences were found in the BVMT-R. The current study demonstrates that a brief and specific training in memory strategies can help patients to improve a deficient memory process in schizophrenia. Future studies will need to test this intervention further using a randomised controlled trial, and to explore its functional impact.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychological RehabilitationSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207