MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394797891 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.240432

Correction to “Therapistguided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”

2024· review· en· W4394797891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPsychologyCognitionSystematic reviewMedicinePsychotherapistPhysical therapyMEDLINEPsychiatryInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CMAJ has been made aware of errors that occurred in the Mar. 18, 2024, issue.[1][1] The section of the Results on risk of bias should have described how knowledge of the intervention may have influenced patient-reported outcomes, not patient-reported incomes. The Figure 3 caption erroneously

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.477
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.477
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.010
Bibliometrics0.0160.022
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0090.007
Research integrity0.0140.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1400.042

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→