Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Editor: In the January 2005 pissue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, risk assessment in psychiatric practice is reviewed. Four helpful articles provide general psychiatrists with an up-to-date, current overview of forensic practice and risk assessment. In particular, Clinical Use of Risk Assessment, by Graham Glancy and Gary Chaimowitz, carefully reviews the current practice of acting on a risk assessment and the duty to protect a specific population at potential risk of physical threat or injury (1). But what about the risk to the general population from forensic patients as a result of their dangerous driving behaviours? Under the 2000 Canadian Medical Association guidelines (2), general physicians as well as general psychiatrists are mandated to report drivers with psychiatric illness to their local ministry of transportion when the illness is thought to interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Unfortunately, no clinically useful instruments are readily available to guide clinicians in this important risk assessment. Current findings from a metaanalysis of the world literature on driving risk and psychiatric illness reveals significant findings related to substance use but a deficit in other diagnostic categories that are relevant to forensic psychiatry (3). In particular, there are no significant data available to guide clinicians regarding the degree of risk associated with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and driving. This lack of available evidence-based data relating to psychopathy is compounded by inherent difficulties faced by forensic psychiatrists in clinical practice. There appears to be an inherent conflict in asking leading questions regarding potentially dangerous driving styles that may inhibit open disclosure about other more immediately relevant clinical forensic issues. McGill University is currently conducting a Canadian-based survey on psychiatrists' knowledge of and practice in psychiatric illness driving and reporting styles (4). It would be interesting to compare a representative group of forensic psychiatrists' current practice of reporting high-risk drivers, during the course of their clinical practice, with a sample of more general psychiatrists not engaged in forensic work. The development of a simple screening device for problem driving would be useful to all physicians in everyday practice. Such an instrument might have a place in the overall forensic risk assessment. As Glancy and Chaimowitz note in their article, Further instruments should be established and well validated (1, p 13). We are currently developing a clinical screening instrument, the Jerome Driving Questionnaire, that we hope will be useful in general clinical practice, as well as in more specialized areas such as forensic work. Preliminary data indicate that this instrument shows clinically useful correlations with on-the-road driving assessments, made by experienced driving instructors, of driving risk in nonclinical populations of novice drivers (5). References 1. Glancy G, Chaimowitz G. The clinical use of risk assessment. Can J Psychiatry 2005;50:12-7. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».