MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101874787 · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-7-23

An animated depiction of major depression epidemiology

2007· article· en· W2101874787 on OpenAlexaff
Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsEpidemiologyAnimationComputer scienceVRMLEpidemiological methodDepictionPopulationData scienceMedicineVirtual realityArtificial intelligencePathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic estimates are now available for a variety of parameters related to major depression epidemiology (incidence, prevalence, etc.). These estimates are potentially useful for policy and planning purposes, but it is first necessary that they be synthesized into a coherent picture of the epidemiology of the condition. Several attempts to do so have been made using mathematical modeling procedures. However, this information is not easy to communicate to users of epidemiological data (clinicians, administrators, policy makers). METHODS: In this study, up-to-date data on major depression epidemiology were integrated using a discrete event simulation model. The mathematical model was animated in Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) to create a visual, rather than mathematical, depiction of the epidemiology. RESULTS: Consistent with existing literature, the model highlights potential advantages of population health strategies that emphasize access to effective long-term treatment. The paper contains a web-link to the animation. CONCLUSION: Visual animation of epidemiological results may be an effective knowledge translation tool. In clinical practice, such animations could potentially assist with patient education and enhanced long-term compliance.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.382 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207