MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964549258 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.10.3.89

Review: Antidepressants may increase risk of self-harm or suicidal behaviour in children and adolescents

2007· letter· en· W1964549258 on OpenAlexaff
Khrista Boylan, Péter Szatmári

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPsychologySuicidal behaviorPsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dubicka B, Hadley S, Roberts C. Suicidal behaviour in youths with depression treated with new-generation antidepressants: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2006;189:393–8.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Do antidepressants increase the risk of self-harm or suicidal behaviour in children and adolescents? ### ![Graphic][3] Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. ### ![Graphic][4] Data sources: UK Committee for Safety of Medicines (CSM) review up to January 2004; Medline and PsycINFO from January 2004 to August 2005; the Cochrane Database; the GlaxoSmithKline website for paroxetine, and contact with researchers in the field. ### ![Graphic][5] Study selection and analysis: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children and adolescents with a major depressive disorder comparing antidepressants versus placebo for 8–12 weeks. ### ![Graphic][6] Outcomes: Suicide-related events (attempted suicide, suicidal thoughts or self-harm from CSM data; or worsening suicide ideation or suicide attempt or both from Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study). Sixteen RCTs met inclusion criteria (n = 2741; … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DBr.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DDUBICKA%26rft.auinit1%253DB.%26rft.volume%253D189%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D393%26rft.epage%253D398%26rft.atitle%253DSuicidal%2Bbehaviour%2Bin%2Byouths%2Bwith%2Bdepression%2Btreated%2Bwith%2Bnew-generation%2Bantidepressants%253A%2BMeta-analysis%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1192%252Fbjp.bp.105.011833%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17077427%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjprcpsych&resid=189/5/393&atom=%2Febmental%2F10%2F3%2F89.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207