MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782412603 · doi:10.53841/bpscpf.2018.1.303.9

Old wine in new bottles? On the new NICE guidelines for depression

2018· article· en· W2782412603 on OpenAlexaff
Susan McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology Forum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiceExcellenceGuidelineWineDepression (economics)Psychological interventionMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a critical look at the approach taken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) when evaluating the evidence base for psychological interventions for depression. It was originally written in June 2017, in advance of the current draft guideline being put out for consultation, and first published on the Cost of Living blog.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.182
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0190.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.920
GPT teacher head0.814
Teacher spread0.106 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology ForumSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207