MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064026058 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2008-0029

Project Direct: Pilot Study of A Collaborative Intervention for Depressed Seniors

2008· article· en· W2064026058 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jane McCusker, Martín G. Cole, Mark J. Yaffe⃰, Philippe Cappeliez, Martin Dawes, Maida Sewitch, Antonio Ciampi, Éric Latimer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialDepression (economics)MedicineMedical prescriptionFamily medicineCollaborative CarePsychiatryPhysical therapyNursingPrimary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of an intervention for major depression among seniors in Canadian family practice. The intervention involved care by a family physician augmented by a Depression Care Practitioner, the latter working under the supervision of a psychiatrist. Treatments included family doctors' prescriptions of antidepressants according to an evidence-based study algorithm and/or brief problem-solving therapy. Eligible patients aged 60+ were identified in a 2-step screening process: 68 patients from 29 Montreal family practices were randomized, and 66 completed the 2-month follow-up. Results support the feasibility of a multisite trial of this intervention.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207