Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Screening adolescents for depression has recently been advocated by two major national organizations. However, this practice is not without controversy. Objective: To review diagnostic, clinical, and conflict of interest issues associated with the calls for routine depression screening in adolescents. Method: The evaluation of depression screening by the US Preventive Services Task Force is compared and contrasted with those of comparable agencies in the UK and Canada, and articles arguing for and against screening are reviewed. Internal pharmaceutical industry documents declassified through litigation are examined for conflicts of interest. A case is presented that illustrates the substantial diagnostic limitations of self-administered mental health screening tools. Discussion: The value of screening adolescents for psychiatric illness is questionable, as is the validity of the screening tools that have been developed for this purpose. Furthermore, many of those advocating depression screening are key opinion leaders, who are in effect acting as third-party advocates for the pharmaceutical industry. The evidence suggests that a commitment to marketing rather than to science is behind their recommendations, although their conflicts of interest are hidden in what seem to be impartial third-party 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".