MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991303635

Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Major Depression and Anxiety Disorders: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness

2018· review· en· W2991303635 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Calvin Young, Kaitryn Campbell, Camille Dulong

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionAnxietyMental healthThe InternetHealth technologyMedicineDepression (economics)CognitionPsychiatryCognitive behavioral therapyPsychologyHealth carePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health Quality Ontario (HQO) and CADTH have collaborated on a project entitled “Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment”. The objective of this collaborative project was to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence on iCBT technologies and assess their potential value to the Canadian health care system. This Rapid Response report aims to serve as a supplement to the clinical review conducted as part of the health technology assessment. Evidence from primary studies that have been published more recently than the systematic reviews included in the full health technology assessment (HTA), as well as evidence on transdiagnostic interventions (i.e., programs that apply the same underlying treatment principles across multiple mental health conditions) will be examined in this review to provide decision-makers with additional information.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Same topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207