MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2019508289 · doi:10.1136/bmj.g6503

Reservations about study on antidepressant use by young people and suicidal behaviour after FDA warnings

2014· letter· en· W2019508289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew D. Mosholder, Lockwood G. Taylor, Victor Crentsil

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntidepressantSuicide ratesDepression (economics)PsychiatryQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineSuicide preventionPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Poison controlMedical emergencyHistoryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We agree with several of Lu and colleagues’ conclusions.1 However, we have serious reservations about their conclusion that antidepressant warnings discouraged appropriate pharmacotherapy for depression, resulting in more suicidal behaviours by patients with unmedicated depression. Firstly, we agree that there was no appreciable increase in completed suicide rates in young people coinciding with the warnings, as confirmed by Barber and colleagues.2 Indeed, in 2007, after the warnings, the US adolescent suicide rate reached a 25 year low.3 The quarterly suicide rates in adults presented by Lu and colleagues are generally below age specific US suicide rates, which suggests under-reporting. However, we would not expect systematic under-reporting of suicides to affect the trend analyses if the level of under-reporting remained constant. We also agree that a trend change in antidepressant usage occurred after the warnings. However, it is unclear whether this change is entirely due to the warnings because promotional spending on antidepressants by drug companies dropped by about a third during the same period (by roughly $200m (£124m; €158m) per quarter between 2004 and 2006.4 We agree, too, that psychotropic …

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0340.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→