MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1667663201 · doi:10.26443/mjm.v11i2.571

Challenging Received Wisdom: Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect

2020· article· en· W1667663201 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Irving Kirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineDenialAntidepressantClinical trialPlacebo responsePsychiatryAlternative medicinePsychotherapistIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the reaction when an article challenging received wisdom is published and covered extensively by the media (1). The article in question was a meta-analysis of antidepressant clinical trials indicating that for most patients, difference between drug and placebo was not clinically significant. Reactions ranged from denial that the effects of antidepressants are so small to criticisms of the clinical trials that were analyzed. Each of these reactions is explored and countered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of MedicineSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207