MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317354953 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800013878

Cross-National Comparisons of Antidepressant Use Among Institutionalized Older Persons Based on the Minimum Data Set (MDS)

2000· article· fr· W2317354953 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John P. Hirdes, Naoki Ikegami, Pálmi V. Jónsson, Eva Topinková, Colleen J. Maxwell, Keita Yamauchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ On a examiné l'usage des antidépresseurs dans des échantillons provenant d'établissements de soins de longue durée de Toronto (Canada), Sapporo et Naie (Japon), Reykjavik (Islande) et Prague (République tchéque). C'est seulement en Islande que la majorité des résidents souffrant de dépression recevaient des antidépresseurs. Le taux de dépression et l'usage des antidépresseurs sont généralement faibles au Japon. On a constaté un écart important entre le diagnostic de dépression et le comportement dépressif en République tchèque. Dans tous les pays examinés, environ la moitié des utilisateurs d'antidépresseurs ne présentent pas de symptômes évidents de dépression. Dans certains pays, l'usage des antidépresseurs était moins élevé chez les résidentes, chez les aîné(e)s plus âgés ou plus handicapés. La dépression est clairement sous-diagnostiqué en République tchèque mais les faibles taux de dépression au Japon sont plus difficiles à interpréter. Étant donné l'opinion largement répandue voulant que la dépressione passe souvent inaperçue et soit done mal soignée, les résultats de l'étude laissent entendre que l'on pourrait améliorer les mesures prises dans les cas de dépression grâce à des outils comme le MDS.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207