Clinical outcomes of a specialised inpatient unit for adults with mild to severe intellectual disability and mental illness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limitations of general psychiatric services have led to the development of specialised psychiatric programmes for patients with intellectual disability (ID) and mental health needs. Few studies have examined treatment outcomes of specialised inpatient units, and no studies have explored how the effects of intervention may differ for individuals at varying levels of cognitive ability. The present study examined clinical outcomes of inpatients with mild ID in contrast to inpatients with moderate to severe ID within the same service. METHOD: Thirty-three patients (17 with mild ID and 16 with moderate to severe ID) discharged between 2006 and 2008 from a specialised inpatient unit in Canada for adults with ID and mental illness were studied. In addition to examining change in scores on clinical measures, outcomes with regard to length of stay, diagnostic change, residential change and re-admission to hospital were explored. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated clinical improvement from admission to discharge. However, only patients with mild ID demonstrated improvements on the Global Assessment of Functioning. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to consider outcomes of higher and lower functioning individuals with ID on a specialised inpatient unit. Results suggest that outcomes may be different for these groups, and some clinical measures may be more sensitive to changes in patients with more severe disabilities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it