MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958971346 · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30132-4

The Lancet Psychiatry Commission: a blueprint for protecting physical health in people with mental illness

2019· review· en· W2958971346 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Firth, Najma Siddiqi, Ai Koyanagi, Dan Siskind, Simon Rosenbaum, Cherrie Galletly, Stephanie Allan, Constanza Caneo, Rebekah Carney, André F. Carvalho, Mary Lou Chatterton, Christoph U. Correll, Jackie Curtis, Fiona Gaughran, Adrian Heald, Erin Hoare, Sarah E. Jackson, Steve Kisely, Karina Lovell, Mario Maj, Patrick D. McGorry, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Hannah Myles, Brian O’Donoghue, Toby Pillinger, Jerome Sarris, Felipe Barreto Schuch, Lee Smith, Marco Solmi, Shuichi Suetani, Jo Taylor, Scott Teasdale, Graham Thornicroft, John Torous, Tim Usherwood, Davy Vancampfort, Nicola Veronese, Philip B. Ward, Alison R. Yung, Eóin Killackey, Brendon Stubbs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthEconomic and Social Research CouncilNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsBlueprintMental illnessPsychiatryCommissionPhysical illnessMental healthPhysical healthMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0280.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.353 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1,502
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207