MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127215785 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.111035

Rethinking recommendations for screening for depression in primary care

2011· review· en· W2127215785 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Brett D. Thombs, James C. Coyne, Pim Cuijpers, Peter de Jonge, Simon Gilbody, John P. A. Ioannidis, Blair T. Johnson, Scott B. Patten, Erick H. Turner, Roy C. Ziegelstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPrimary careDepression (economics)MedicinePsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Screening for depression in primary care is an issue that is highly contentious and hotly debated, and recommendations have evolved over time. For example, early policy statements from the 1990s in Canada[1][1] and the United States[2][2] recommended against screening for depression in primary care[

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.426
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations225
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207