Psychotropic Medication Monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To address a gap in the literature for concise recommendations on psychotropic medication monitoring geared to prescribers in primary care psychiatry. DATA SOURCES: Large institutional guidelines from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand combined with manual searches for psychiatric medication monitoring consensus and other recommendations up to January 31, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Any available guidelines and consensus statements making psychotropic medication monitoring recommendations for treatment of adults and published in English. DATA EXTRACTION: Manual identification of all specific recommendations on psychotropic medication monitoring from the sources. RESULTS: Psychotropic medication monitoring recommendations vary by source, but there is considerable agreement among English-language sources, which can be readily summarized for teaching and everyday use. CONCLUSIONS: For prescribers working in many disciplines, medication monitoring may be improved by having more ready access to recommendations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it