MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059171056 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030504

Fluoxetine and Suicide Rates: Author's Reply

2006· article· en· W2059171056 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Júlio Licinio

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFluoxetineMedical prescriptionAntidepressantPsychiatryDepression (economics)Socioeconomic statusMedicineSuicide ratesSuicide preventionPoison controlInternal medicineMedical emergencyPopulationEnvironmental healthPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide is a complex outcome which cannot be attributed to a single factor. While we explored an association between suicide and antidepressant prescriptions, we fully acknowledge, as Camargo and Bloch suggest [1], that our work does not fully explain the observed trends. However, in other settings, the same association between increased antidepressant prescriptions and decreases in suicide have been observed. Please refer to the following article, published after ours came out in PLoS Medicine: “Increased antidepressant use and fewer suicides in Jamtland county, Sweden, after a primary care educational programme on the treatment of depression” [2]. I look forward to reading Camargo and Bloch's new article on the association of socioeconomic factors and suicide rates.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0290.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.459
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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207