MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968318117 · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.05.002

Neuroimaging studies of psychological interventions for mood and anxiety disorders: Empirical and methodological review

2007· review· en· W1968318117 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Frewen, David J. A. Dozois, Ruth A. Lanius

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology Review · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Mental Health FoundationCanadian Psychiatric Research Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroimagingPrecuneusAnxietyPsychological interventionMoodDorsolateral prefrontal cortexPosterior cingulateClinical psychologyAnterior cingulate cortexCognitive psychologyPrefrontal cortexNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.914
GPT teacher head0.725
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations258
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology ReviewSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207