MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W156727468 · doi:10.1177/07067437070526s108

Treating Suicidality in Depressive Illness. Part 2: Does Treatment Cure or Cause Suicidality?

2007· review· en· W156727468 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Isaac Sakinofsky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryDepressive symptomsMedicineDepression (economics)Poison controlPsychologyClinical psychologyMedical emergencyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of treatment efficacy for suicidality in mood disorders. To consider the evidence for whether antidepressants may induce suicidality. METHOD: Systematic review of the literature. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There is fairly good evidence that lithium reduces completed suicide and attempt rates in people with bipolar disorder and recurrent unipolar depression. Antidepressants and psychological treatments may reduce suicidal ideation in depressed patients. Antidepressant trials do not, however, a priori target suicidality as an outcome, and inferences made are post hoc. For practical reasons, no adequate trials to date have tested the efficacy of treatment aimed at reducing completed suicide in people with depressive disorders. Antidepressants have been implicated in suicide in one metaanalysis (the elderly) and in one case-control study (youth), signalling the need for caution. However, most metaanalyses have found no significant excess of completed suicide among antidepressant users, compared with placebo groups, in adults and juveniles, but excess nonfatal suicidality is found more often in children and adolescents who take antidepressants (except fluoxetine). The controversy is ongoing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207