MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915109290 · doi:10.1136/bmj.l957

Bipolar disorder: most patients receive suboptimal treatment, finds Scottish study

2019· article· en· W2915109290 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Mayor

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiceBipolar disorderExcellencePsychiatryLithium (medication)AntidepressantQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quarter of patients with bipolar disorder in Scotland are treated with antidepressant monotherapy and do not receive lithium as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), a national data linkage study has shown.1 “Our findings suggest that most patients with bipolar disorder in Scotland are missing out on optimal treatments such as lithium and that many are receiving treatments such as antidepressant monotherapy that are at best ineffective and, at worse, detrimental for long term outcome,” warned the study authors, led by Daniel Smith, professor of psychiatry at …

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)0.010
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207