MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040521730 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.8.1.26

Canadian study finds that antidepressant use has increased in people with major depression over the past decade

2005· letter· en· W2040521730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carla A. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)MedicinePopulationPsychiatryPediatricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patten SB. Major depression and mental health care utilization in Canada: 1994 to 2000. Can J Psychiatry 2004;49:303–9.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Q What is the frequency and pattern of antidepressant use in Canadian people with major depression? ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Design: Prospective longitudinal study. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Setting: General population, Canada; enrolment 1994–95. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Population: 9438 people aged over 15 years at enrolment, randomly sampled from the general population. Exclusions: military bases, native reserves, and some remote areas. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Assessment: Data were collected every two years on the frequency of healthcare use in relation to major depression as part of the National Population Health Survey. Episodes of depression in the year preceding assessment were identified using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form for Major Depression. Any medications used in the two days preceding the interview were … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BCanadian%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DCan%2BJ%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DPatten%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BB.%26rft.volume%253D49%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D303%26rft.epage%253D309%26rft.atitle%253DMajor%2BDepression%2Band%2BMental%2BHealth%2BCare%2BUtilization%2Bin%2BCanada%253A%2B1994%2Bto%2B2000%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1177%252F070674370404900505%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15198466%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=10.1177/070674370404900505&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15198466&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F1%2F26.atom [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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