MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7112238898

Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT): Precision Analysis Protocol

2024· other· W7112238898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2024
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAnxietyTelemedicineProtocol (science)Health careRandomized controlled trialmHealth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overarching goal of the Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) trial is to examine the scalability of patient-centered provision of brief, evidence-based psychological treatments for perinatal depression and anxiety (N=1,226). Specifically, and through a multi-site, randomized, non-inferiority trial, the trial examines whether a brief, behavioral activation (BA) treatment delivered via telemedicine is as effective as the same treatment delivered in-person; and whether BA delivered by non-specialist providers (nurses, midwives, etc. with no previous mental health training) with appropriate training is as effective as when delivered by specialist providers (psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers) in reducing perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. The study is being conducted in Toronto, Chicago and Chapel Hill. The trial will also identify relevant underlying implementation processes and determine whether, and to what extent, these strategies work differentially for certain women compared to others. The primary objectives of the larger trial are to: • Examine if a brief, BA psychological treatment delivered by non-specialist providers (NSP) is as effective in treating perinatal depressive symptoms as specialist-delivered treatment* (Primary Aim 1); and • Examine if a brief BA psychological treatment delivered through telemedicine (TM) is as effective in treating perinatal depressive symptoms as in-person (IP; Primary Aim 2)*. *Note: ‘as effective’ is the language that we used in the PCORI submission. After consultations with several statistical experts, we will cater the language accordingly for the audience e.g., use ‘non-inferior’ for academic audiences and the current language for lay audiences. The secondary objective that applies to the Process Analysis described in this preregistration is to conduct a process evaluation, i.e., identify the underlying processes related to delivery and scalability of a brief psychological treatment for perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms from a multi-stakeholder perspective.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1210.019

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→French-language works237,207→