Revisão das diretrizes da Associação Médica Brasileira para o tratamento da depressão (Versão integral)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Depression is a frequent, recurrent and chronic condition with high levels of functional disability. The Brazilian Medical Association Guidelines project proposed guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of the most common medical disorders. The objective of this paper is to present a review of the Guidelines Published in 2003 incorporating new evidence and recommendations. METHOD: This review was based on guidelines developed in other countries and systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials and when absent, observational studies and recommendations from experts. The Brazilian Medical Association proposed this methodology for the whole project. The review was developed from new international guidelines published since 2003. RESULTS: The following aspects are presented: prevalence, demographics, disability, diagnostics and sub-diagnosis, efficacy of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment, costs and side-effects of different classes of available drugs in Brazil. Strategies for different phases of treatment are also discussed. CONCLUSION: The Guidelines are an important tool for clinical decisions and a reference for orientation based on the available evidence in the literature.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it