MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545880965 · doi:10.1002/mpr.356

Quality assessment of observational studies in psychiatry: an example from perinatal psychiatric research

2011· article· en· W1545880965 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSickKids FoundationSunnybrook Health Science CentreCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsObservational studyPsychiatrySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialQuality (philosophy)PsychologyObservational methods in psychologyMedicineMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In perinatal psychiatry, randomized controlled trials are often not feasible on ethical grounds. Many studies are observational in nature, while others employ large databases not designed primarily for research purposes. Quality assessment of the resulting research is complicated by a lack of standardized tools specifically for this purpose. The aim of this paper is to describe the Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research (SAQOR), a quality assessment tool our team devised for a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evidence-based literature regarding risks and benefits of antidepressant medication during pregnancy.

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.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.777
GPT teacher head0.686
Teacher spread0.090 · 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