MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507671672 · doi:10.1080/08039488.2016.1216163

Personalized medicine in psychiatry

2016· review· en· W2507671672 on OpenAlexaff
Ida Kim Wium‐Andersen, Maj Vinberg, Lars Vedel Kessing, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueNordic Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryPersonalized medicinePsychologyMedicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine is a model in which a patient's unique clinical, genetic, and environmental characteristics are the basis for treatment and prevention. Aim, method, and results: This review aims to describe the current tools, phenomenological features, clinical risk factors, and biomarkers used to provide personalized medicine. Furthermore, this study describes the target areas in which they can be applied including diagnostics, treatment selection and response, assessment of risk of side-effects, and prevention. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Personalized medicine in psychiatry is challenged by the current taxonomy, where the diagnostic categories are broad and great biological heterogeneity exists within each category. There is, thus, a gap between the current advanced research prospects and clinical practice, and the current taxonomy is, thus, a poor basis for biological research. The discussion proposes possible solutions to narrow this gap and to move psychiatric research forward towards personalized medicine.

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)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations77
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordic Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207