The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group: Preparing, maintaining and disseminating the evidence for interventions used for people with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cochrane Collaboration's Schizophrenia Group has, since 1994, been preparing, disseminating and updating high quality systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of interventions for people with schizophrenia. The aim of this study was to summarise the Group's methods and its output in terms of effective interventions for people with schizophrenia, and to evaluate this evidence from the perspective of the care of people with schizophrenia in developing countries. This was achieved by a search and narrative synthesis of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's module and database of systematic reviews in Issue 4, 2003 of the Cochrane Library. The results found that the Schizophrenia Group had, by December 2003, published 100 completed reviews, or protocols for reviews, of pharmacological, physical, spiritual, psychosocial interventions and health care delivery pertaining to those with schizophrenia. While evidence of efficacy is present for many of these interventions, evidence of efficiency is less compelling. The reviews in the Cochrane Library provide the currently best available evidence on the value of interventions for people with schizophrenia, but this may not generalize to developing country settings. Pragmatic randomized trials of interventions and evaluations of systems of health care delivery relevant to developing countries are required if the care of those with schizophrenia in these settings is to improve.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.149 | 0.346 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".