Treatment effects on neurometabolite levels in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis dataset of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a dataset for a meta-analysis that aimed to investigate the effects of treatment on the neurometabolite status in patients with schizophrenia (DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2020.03.069 [1]). The data search was performed with MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. The neurometabolites investigated include glutamate, glutamine, glutamate + glutamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid, N-acetylaspartate, and myo-inositol, and the regions of interest (ROIs) include the frontal cortex, temporal cortex, parieto-occipital cortex, thalamus, basal ganglia, and hippocampus. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model, and the use of the standardized mean difference method between pre- and post-treatment of subjects for neurometabolites in each ROI of three patient groups or more. The dataset covers raw data of 39 patient groups (773 patients with schizophrenia at follow-up) with neurometabolite levels measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy both before and after treatment. Furthermore, it contains details of clinical characteristics and treatment types for each group. Therefore, the data would be useful for a reinvestigation of treatment effects on the neurometabolite status from diverse points of view, as well as for the development of future treatment strategies for psychiatric diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".