Les études de coûts-efficacité des traitements pharmacologiques et psychologiques des troubles anxieux : une recension des écrits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur une recension des écrits sur l’évaluation économique des traitements éprouvés cognitivo-comportementaux et pharmacologiques des troubles anxieux. La recherche des articles pertinents s’échelonne de 1980 à 2008, à partir des bases de données électroniques du milieu médical et psychologique. Sept études sont recensées et portent sur le trouble panique, le trouble d’anxiété généralisée, la phobie spécifique et la phobie sociale. Les traitements pharmacologiques et la psychothérapie cognitive-comportementale présentent un rapport coûts-efficacité avantageux, particulièrement lorsque comparés aux soins usuels. Les auteurs concluent que malgré le besoin de renforcer l’état des connaissances sur le rapport coûts-efficacité des interventions, il semble avantageux pour la société d’accroître l’accès aux traitements éprouvés des troubles anxieux.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".