MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255114985 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/xjz9u

Outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials of major depressive disorder treatments in adolescents: a systematic scoping review protocol

2018· preprint· en· W4255114985 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Monsour, Emma J. Mew, Péter Szatmári, Sagar Patel, Leena Saeed, Martin Offringa, Nancy J. Butcher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMajor depressive disorderMEDLINEMedicineSystematic reviewPopulationProtocol (science)Clinical trialMental healthPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologyAlternative medicineMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common mental health condition in adolescents. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold-standard for assessing the safety and efficacy of interventions in this population. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported between RCTs limits the ability to compare, contrast, and combine trial results in a clinically meaningful way. There is currently no core outcome set (COS) available for use in RCTs evaluating interventions in adolescents with MDD. We will conduct a systematic scoping review of outcomes reported in adolescent depression RCTs to assess the variability of trial outcomes and to inform the development of a COS for adolescent MDD. Methods and analysis: We will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. RCTs evaluating any treatment intervention for adolescent MDD published in the last ten years will be located using an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting of eligible studies will be performed in duplicate. Outcomes identified will be mapped to an outcome domain framework. Data analysis will include summary statistics of the characteristics of the included trials and outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: The results of this review will inform the development of a COS for adolescent MDD. The development and implementation of a COS for RCTs evaluating interventions in adolescents with MDD promises to help reduce variability in trial outcome selection, definition, measurement, and reporting, ultimately facilitating evidence synthesis that will help to identify best treatment practices for adolescents with MDD. Registration details: This protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/xjz9u/).

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)0.184
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1840.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.018
Bibliometrics0.0210.023
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.019

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207