ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023
Integrating exploration and prediction in computational psychotherapy science: proof of concept.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Psychotherapy research has long preferred explanatory over predictive models. As a result, psychotherapy research is currently limited in the variability that can be accounted for in the process and outcome of treatment. The present study is a proof-of-concept approach to psychotherapy science that uses a datadriven approach to achieve robust predictions of the process and outcome of treatment. Methods: A trial including 65 therapeutic dyads was designed to enable an adequate level of variability in therapist characteristics, overcoming the common problem of restricted range. A mixed-model, data-driven approach with cross-validation machine learning algorithms was used to predict treatment outcome and alliance (within- and between-clients; client- and therapist-rated alliance). Results and discussion: Based on baseline predictors only, the models explained 52.8% of the variance for out-of-sample prediction in treatment outcome, and 24.1-52.8% in therapeutic alliance. The identified predictors were consistent with previous findings and point to directions for future investigation. Although limited by its sample size, this study serves as proof of the great potential of the presented approach to produce robust predictions regarding the process and outcome of treatment, offering a potential solution to problems such as
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.