MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015299037 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.6.2.45

Review: antidepressants and psychotherapy may be equally effective for promoting remission in major depressive disorder

2003· letter· en· W2015299037 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond W. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb of scienceInternal medicineMajor depressive disorderMedicinePsychiatryGastroenterologyPediatricsMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Casacalenda N, Perry C, Looper K. Remission in major depressive disorder: a comparison of pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and control conditions. Am J Psych2002 Aug; 159 : 1354 –60. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do anti-depressants and psychotherapy compare in generating full remission in major depressive disorder? Systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies were identified using Medline and PsychInfo (to November 2000). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials with blinded participants and assessors that (1) directly compared medications, psychotherapy and controls for well defined major depressive disorder; (2) included remission data. 6 studies were included with 883 outpatients with mild to moderate non-psychotic major depressive disorder. Mean age ranged from 32–40 years; 77% women (range 68–85%). Median treatment duration was 16 weeks (range 10–34). Data were extracted on baseline measurements, sample size, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DCasacalenda%26rft.auinit1%253DN.%26rft.volume%253D159%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D1354%26rft.epage%253D1360%26rft.atitle%253DRemission%2Bin%2BMajor%2BDepressive%2BDisorder%253A%2BA%2BComparison%2Bof%2BPharmacotherapy%252C%2BPsychotherapy%252C%2Band%2BControl%2BConditions%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ajp.159.8.1354%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12153828%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ajp.159.8.1354&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12153828&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F6%2F2%2F45.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000177327300014&link_type=ISI

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207