MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257461638 · doi:10.18192/riss-ijhs.v4i1.1221

Reducing the Global Burden of Depression

2014· article· en· W2257461638 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Prabjyot Kaur Chahil

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue interdisciplinaire des sciences de la santé - Interdisciplinary Journal of Health Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)PharmacotherapyMedicineIntensive care medicineBurden of diseasePsychiatryAdverse effectDiseasePharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depression is expected to be one of the leading causes of morbidity by 2020. Nonetheless, the current methods of treatment for depression may not be effective in reducing the global burden of this disease. Currently, pharmacotherapy represents the first line treatment for depressive disorders; however, many adverse effects of anti-depressants are often overlooked and their interference with body chemistry may not be ideal for long-term treatment. In order to reduce the burden of disease of depression, methods of treatment such as counseling and therapy should be considered as alternatives to pharmacotherapy. Most importantly, these treatments reduce the occurrence of depression relapse, making them more effective in the long-term. In addition to alternative methods of treatment, depression prevention strategies should be prioritized. Not only is depression prevention the best solution therapeutically, but it is also the most cost-effective in reducing global morbidity. In order to implement these strategies, however, more evidence-based research on the prevention of depressive disorders is required.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue interdisciplinaire des sciences de la santé - Interdisciplinary Journal of Health SciencesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207