MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763173694 · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(17)30371-1

Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a multisite, randomised, sham-controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2763173694 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul E. Holtzheimer, Mustafa M. Husain, Sarah H. Lisanby, Stephan F. Taylor, Louis A. Whitworth, Shawn M. McClintock, Konstantin V. Slavin, Joshua A. Berman, Guy M. McKhann, Parag G. Patil, Barry R. Rittberg, Aviva Abosch, Ananda K. Pandurangi, Kathryn L. Holloway, Raymond W. Lam, Christopher R. Honey, Joseph S. Neimat, Jaimie M. Henderson, Charles DeBattista, Anthony J. Rothschild, Julie G. Pilitsis, Randall Espinoza, Georgios Petrides, Alon Y. Mogilner, K. Matthews, DeLea Peichel, Robert E. Gross, Clement Hamani, Andrés M. Lozano, Helen S. Mayberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsNational Institute on Drug AbuseBrain and Behavior Research FoundationMedtronicDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyH. Lundbeck A/SNeuroPaceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJazz PharmaceuticalsStanley FoundationBoston Scientific CorporationAllerganBiotronikNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyHope for Depression Research FoundationNational Institutes of HealthA. Alfred Taubman Medical Research InstitutePfizerBaxter InternationalGlaxoSmithKlineNational Institute of Mental HealthAmerican Epilepsy SocietySt. Jude MedicalRare Disease FoundationNational Institute on AgingAbbott LaboratoriesGE Global ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDepression (economics)Deep brain stimulationMedicineTreatment-resistant depressionAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialWhite matterClinical trialClinical endpointMajor depressive disorderInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations556
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet PsychiatrySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207