P02-262 Age group differences in psychiatric hospital settings in ontario: Evidence based on the interrai mental health (MH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the clinical characteristics of persons in mental health settings are likely to vary in relation to a number of different, age is often considered to be one of the primary factors associated with the strengths, preferences and needs of psychiatric patients. The present study employs data from the mandated use of the interRAI Mental Health (MH) assessment instruments as part of normal clinical practice in Ontario psychiatric hospitals/units. The interRAI MH is a comprehensive assessment tool designed to support care plan development and outcome measurement at the person level, as well as quality monitoring and resource allocation at the organizational level. A sample of 27,530 Ontario psychiatric inpatients aged 18+ was examined with respect to socio-demographic, clinical, patient safety and service utilization characteristics. Younger and middle aged persons were compared with a subsample of 3,219 adults aged 65 years or more, including 112 nonagenarians. Although there were a number of notable differences across age groups, there were substantial variations within the elderly population when considering source of admission. Elderly patients admitted from the general community were often relatively comparable to their younger counterparts; however, those admitted from nursing homes were a distinctive subgroup from both younger and older patients admitted from the community. This suggests that age alone is rather limited in its utility for describing mental health populations and more comprehensive clinically based measures should be employed to fully understand the needs and experiences of older adults in psychiatric settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".