MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001427239 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_15

Distinguishing Bipolar Depression, Major Depression, and Schizophrenia With the MMPI-2 Clinical and Content Scales

2005· article· en· W2001427239 on OpenAlex
R. Michael Bagby, Margarita B. Marshall, Michael R. Basso, Robert A. Nicholson, Jason R. Bacchiochi, Lesley Miller

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyDepression (economics)Minnesota Multiphasic Personality InventorySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Bipolar disorderClinical psychologyContent (measure theory)PsychiatryPersonalityMoodPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical and content scales from the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) were used to examine the capacity of these scales to assist in the differential diagnosis of a sample of 212 psychiatric patients-137 with major depression; 43 with schizophrenia; and 32 with bipolar disorder, depressed state. Consistent with the previous literature, the clinical scales Depression (D), and Schizophrenia (Sc), and the content scales Depression (DEP), and Low Self-Esteem (LSE) best distinguished major depression from schizophrenia; the content scale DEP proved to be the most powerful predictor in distinguishing bipolar depression from schizophrenia. No clinical or content scale proved to be effective in distinguishing patients with bipolar depression from patients with major depression. In general, the content scales outperformed the clinical scales.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.307 · 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