MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412577332 · doi:10.12740/pp/59304

Letter to Editor. Use of specific SSRIs and birth defects

2015· letter· pl· W2412577332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ewa Bałkowiec-Iskra

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatria Polska · 2015
Typeletter
Languagepl
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlantaDisease controlMedicineContext (archaeology)Family medicineGerontologyPediatricsEnvironmental healthHistoryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

W dniu 08.07.2015 w czasopiśmie British Medical Journal opublikowany został artykuł „Specific SSRI and birth defects : bayesian analysis to interpret new data in the context of previous reports”, autorstwa J. Reefhuis, (National Center on Birth Defects and Developmetal Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA); O. Devine (National Center on Birth Defects and Developmetal Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA); JM Friedman (Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada); C. Louik (Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA) oraz MA. Honein (National Center on Birth Defects and Developmetal Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA), zawierający nowe, istotne dane dotyczące farmakoterapii depresji w okresie ciąży. Celem artykułu była ocena bezpieczeństwa stosowania w pierwszym trymestrze ciąży pięciu leków przeciwdepresyjnych z grupy wybiórczych inhibitorów wychwytu zwrotnego serotoniny (SSRI- selective serotonine reuptake inhibitors), tj. fluoksetyny, sertraliny, paroksetyny, citalopramu oraz escitalopramu.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0190.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatria PolskaSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207