MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W149077341 · doi:10.1177/070674371005501202

The Epidemiology of Excess Mortality in People with Mental Illness

2010· review· en· W149077341 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David Lawrence, Joanne Pais

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessLife expectancyMedicineExcess mortalityEpidemiologyPsychiatryMental healthPopulationMEDLINEGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: to investigate the burden of excess mortality among people with mental illness in developed countries, how it is distributed, and whether it has changed over time. METHOD: we conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, restricting our attention to peer-reviewed studies and reviews published in English relating to mortality and mental illness. Because of the large number of studies that have been undertaken during the last 30 years, we have selected a representative cross-section of studies for inclusion in our review. RESULTS: there is substantial excess mortality in people with mental illness for almost all psychiatric disorders and all main causes of death. Consistently elevated rates have been observed across settings and over time. The highest numbers of excess deaths are due to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. With life expectancy increasing in the general population, the disparity in mortality outcomes for people with mental illness is increasing. CONCLUSIONS: without the development of alternative approaches to promoting and treating the physical health of people with mental illness, it is possible that the disparity in mortality outcomes will persist.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations256
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207