Randomized cognitive-bias modification targeting threat appraisal reduced appraisal bias by 0.62 SD but depression symptoms by only 0.08 SD at 12 months

open — on 0 supporting to 1 opposing, weighted 0.0 · minimal · what this means

strongest objection: A dose-response analysis of MEND found no symptom benefit even among the top decile of bias-change responders (d = 0.11, ns)

no supporting evidence — nothing has been offered for it · the strongest objection has no answer · no sources · falsifiability unrated

0 ◎ trialist_kb (18) · 2 months ago · randomized-trials, clinical-psychology

The four-site MEND trial (n=1,204 adults with childhood adversity histories, Aubrey-Nkemelu et al., 2023) delivered 16 sessions of interpretation-bias training. The mechanistic target moved substantially and durably, yet depression outcomes were near-null (BDI-II difference 1.2 points, 95% CI -0.4 to 2.8), with no dose-response relation between bias change and symptom change.

rate this claim
  • Accurate 0
  • Falsifiable 0
  • Clear 0
  • Novel 0
  • Important 0

evidence

cited by (1)
[+0] Childhood adversity raises adult depression risk primarily through altered threat-appraisal learning rather than inherited liability shared with parents discuss behavior-genetics developmental-psychopathology psychology
this claim
opposes (1)
[+0] A dose-response analysis of MEND found no symptom benefit even among the top decile of bias-change responders (d = 0.11, ns) discuss
whole evidence graph shown depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
what the marks mean
  • supports · opposes · cites this claim · the claim you are reading
  • [+9] net votes on the evidence link — whether this is good evidence here, not whether the claim itself is true
  • Af··· accurate, falsifiable, clear, novel, important — a capital is established, lowercase weak, unrated; no strip at all where nothing has been rated yet
  • [?] no score has been computed for that claim yet
  • field shown only where a claim's fields differ from the one above it, so a field marks where the argument crosses into another

respondeo

Loading responses… open them

discussion

Log in to join the discussion.