MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253672188 · doi:10.3928/00485713-20060401-05

Defining Neurocircuits in Depression

2006· article· en· W2253672188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Annals · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationContext (archaeology)Depression (economics)Major depressive disorderMedicinePsychiatryNeuromodulationPsychologyPsychotherapistCognitionStimulationInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>While many effective treatments are available to treat a major depressive episode, no clinical or biological markers identify which patients are likely to respond to a given treatment or explain why one treatment modality or class of medication is effective when another is not. With these clinical issues in mind, this article presents a synthesis of brain changes associated with clinical response to pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), identified using functional neuroimaging, with findings interpreted in the context of a data-driven depression model. </p> <h4>ABOUT THE AUTHOR</h4> <p>Dr. Mayberg is professor, Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.</p> <p>Address reprint requests to: Helen Mayberg, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Emory University School of Medicine, 101 Woodruff Circle, WMB 4313, Atlanta GA 30327; or e-mail <a href="mailto:hmayber@emory.edu">hmayber@emory.edu</a>.</p> <p>The research described in this article was supports in part by grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Depression. Dr. Mayberg serves as a consultant for Advanced Neuromodulation Systems on deep brain stimulation.</p>

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)0.000
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric AnnalsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207