MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974436087 · doi:10.1096/fj.07-1102ufm-a

Selecting selectivities and the neuropharmacology of antidepressant drug action

2007· article· en· W1974436087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David B. Bylund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsNeuropharmacologyAntidepressantAction (physics)DrugDrug actionPharmacologyMedicineNeurosciencePsychiatryPsychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientific Advisor: David B. Bylund, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA. Scientific Reviewers: Solomon H. Snyder, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; and Frederick Petty, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA. Breakthroughs in Bioscience Committee: David L. Brautigan, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA; Tony T. Hugli, Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies, San Diego, California, USA; Richard G. Lynch, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA; Mary Lou King, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA; and Loraine Oman-Ganes, American Society of Human Genetics, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Breakthroughs in Bioscience Production Staff: Science Policy Committee Chair, John A. Smith, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Managing Editor, Carrie D. Wolinetz, FASEB Office of Public Affairs; and Suzanne Price, FASEB Office of Public Affairs. Thanks to Margaret Crane, who greatly contributed to the early stages of this project.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207