MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013756288 · doi:10.1093/geronb/56.5.p285

Older Adults' Acceptance of Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Depression

2001· article· en· W2013756288 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Landreville, John Landry, Lucie Baillargeon, Anne Guérette, Evelyne Matteau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCegep de Sainte FoyUniversité Laval
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsDepression (economics)BibliotherapyAntidepressant medicationMedicineDepressive symptomsCognitionAntidepressantClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two hundred participants aged 65 and older recruited from 4 different family medicine clinics rated the acceptability of 3 different treatments for geriatric depression: (a) cognitive therapy (CT), (b) cognitive bibliotherapy (CB), and (c) antidepressant medication (AM). Results showed that the acceptability of the treatments is a function of the severity of the symptoms of the depressed patient to whom they would be applied. CT and CB were rated as more acceptable than AM when patient symptoms were mild to moderate. However, CT was more acceptable than both CB and AM when patient symptoms were described as severe. Acceptability ratings were not related to the raters' own depressive symptoms. The practical implications of these results are discussed.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations119
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207