Cognitive behavioral therapy skills via a smartphone app for subthreshold depression among adults in the community: the RESiLIENT randomized controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Cognitive behavioral therapy skills via a smartphone app for subthreshold depression among adults in the community: the RESiLIENT randomized controlled trial.
Item: Cognitive behavioral therapy skills via a smartphone app for subthreshold depression among adults in the community: the RESiLIENT randomized controlled trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Furukawa TA, Tajika A, Toyomoto R, Sakata M, Luo Y, Horikoshi M, Akechi T, Kawakami N, Nakayama T, Kondo N, Fukuma S, Kessler RC, Christensen H, Whitton A, Nahum-Shani I, Lutz W, Cuijpers P, Wason JMS, Noma H

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 2.75★ (Weak), 0 critical, 7 high issues for “Cognitive behavioral therapy skills via a smartphone app for subthreshold depression among adults in the community: the RESiLIENT randomized controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

2.75 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★
ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced4 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions2

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Ethics/consent reporting incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-designed and well-reported randomized controlled trial with a strong scientific premise, rigorous statistical methods, and transparent data/code sharing. The main weakness is the absence of an explicit ethics approval statement and insufficient detail on informed consent and randomization method, which are fixable reporting gaps.

Both reviewers agreed on all dimensions; no divergence to reconcile. The study is an interventional RCT; non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification covered only a subset of tests (2 recomputed consistently); the rest are unverified but not flagged as problematic.

6 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites numerous studies on subthreshold depression, CBT, and iCBT, and clearly identifies the gap: unknown contribution of individual CBT skills. The rationale for the master protocol and factorial design is well explained. Limitations of prior research (e.g., small dismantling studies) are acknowledged and addressed by the large sample size and factorial design.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise with extensive prior work and a clear rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, first paragraphs]

“Subthreshold depression, or mild depression falling short of the diagnostic threshold for major depressive disorder, is prevalent, persistent and disabling.”