MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1715685834 · doi:10.3233/jrs-2010-0487

The ethics of randomized placebo controlled trials of antidepressants with pregnant women

2010· article· en· W1715685834 on OpenAlexaff
David Healy, Barbara Mintzes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPlaceboMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, a number of authors have advocated the merits of conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants in women with nervous disorders during the prenatal period. However, a critical review of the literature indicates RCTs are not justifiable. At a time when it has become clear that a significant proportion of the existing literature on the use of pharmaceutical agents is ghostwritten, ethicists and others making assertions that RCTs are needed risk becoming part of an apparatus that plays down the hazards of treatment and promotes the use of treatments that may be harmful.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Risk & Safety in MedicineSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207