MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083523868 · doi:10.46278/j.ncacn.20170813

La stimulation magnétique transcrânienne répétitive est-elle efficace pour traiter les troubles anxieux?

2017· article· fr· W3083523868 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mélissandre Parent, Isabelle Blanchette

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychologie clinique et appliquée · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Un tiers des personnes souffrant d’un trouble anxieux ne répond pas aux traitements conventionnels. La stimulation magnétique transcrânienne répétitive (SMTr) pourrait être un traitement complémentaire ou alternatif pour tenter de soigner ces personnes. Dans cet article, nous décrivons l’état des connaissances actuelles dans ce domaine de recherche émergeant concernant l’efficacité du traitement de la SMTr pour traiter certains troubles anxieux (selon le DSM-IV-TR). Le trouble de stress post-traumatique, le trouble obsessionnel-compulsif et le trouble panique sont les troubles anxieux les plus étudiés en lien avec la SMTr. De façon générale, les résultats montrent que la SMTr pourrait être efficace, mais à certaines conditions. Nous identifions les conditions d’efficacité, incluant les paramètres critiques utilisés dans le traitement par la SMTr. Nous identifions aussi les limites des études réalisées à ce jour et les pistes de recherche prometteuses pour la suite.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologie clinique et appliquéeSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207