MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529027522 · doi:10.4088/jcp.12com08192

Publishing Statistically Significant Results With Questionable Clinical Importance: Focus on Antidepressant Use in Pregnancy

2012· review· en· W1529027522 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne Einarson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntidepressantPregnancyDepression (economics)MedicinePsychiatryPublishingPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Article AbstractBecause this piece does not have an abstract, we have provided for your benefit the first 3 sentences of the full text.Many more women than men are diagnosed with depression, most often between 25 and 44 years of age when women are of childbearing age, and approximately 10% to 15% will experience depression during pregnancy. Therefore, a substantial number of women could be taking an antidepressant when they become pregnant.The use of antidepressants has increased in the past decade, as reported by a group using data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, an ongoing case-control study of risk factors for birth defects covering 10 US states.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.248 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207