MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035038549 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.4.3.91

Sertraline was effective and well tolerated for generalised social phobia

2001· article· en· W2035038549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guido Pieters

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSertralineMedicineAgoraphobiaInternal medicinePsychiatryPlaceboSocial anxietyPanic disorderAnxietyPsychologyGastroenterologyAntidepressant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Van Ameringen MA, Lane RM, Walker JR , et al. Sertraline treatment of generalized social phobia: a 20-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry2001 Feb; 158 : 275 –81 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with generalised social phobia, how safe and effective is sertraline? Randomised (unclear allocation concealment*), blinded {clinicians, patients, and outcome assessors*}†, with 20 weeks of follow up. 10 outpatient anxiety clinics in Canada. 204 patients who were 18–60 years of age (mean age 36 y, 56% men), met DSM-IV criteria for generalised social phobia lasting ≥1 year, and had a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity rating of ≤4. Exclusion criteria were uncontrolled illness precluding sertraline use, concomitant use of psychotropic or anti-anxiety medication, neuroleptics, serotonergic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, or β-blockers or clonidine; another primary axis I disorder or met criteria for agoraphobia, or panic, obsessive compulsive, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DVan%2BAmeringen%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D158%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D275%26rft.epage%253D281%26rft.atitle%253DSertraline%2BTreatment%2Bof%2BGeneralized%2BSocial%2BPhobia%253A%2BA%2B20-Week%252C%2BDouble-Blind%252C%2BPlacebo-Controlled%2BStudy%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ajp.158.2.275%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11156811%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.158.2.275&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11156811&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F4%2F3%2F91.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166761400018&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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207