MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996519304 · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30513-9

Evidence for preventive treatments in young patients at clinical high risk of psychosis: the need for context

2019· letter· en· W2996519304 on OpenAlexafffund
Barnaby Nelson, Andreas Bechdolf, Paul French, Ashok Malla, Anthony P. Morrison, Stefanie J. Schmidt, Jai Shah, Andrew Thompson, Mark van der Gaag, Stephen J. Wood, Scott W. Woods, Alison R. Yung, Patrick D. McGorry

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Psychiatry · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversität zu KölnVrije Universiteit AmsterdamUniversity of BernUniversity of MelbourneNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMcGill UniversityYale University
KeywordsSystematic reviewScrutinyContext (archaeology)MedicineMEDLINECochrane LibraryCochrane collaborationIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPsychiatryFamily medicinePsychologyIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.533
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.533
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.024
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0320.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet PsychiatrySame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207