Review: day hospital is as effective as inpatient care but has lower costs for patients with acute psychiatric disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2003) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, CD004026. Marshall M, Crowther R, Almaraz-Serrano A, et al. . Day hospital versus admission for acute psychiatric disorders. . ; . ( . ) . : . (latest version 19 Nov 2002) . QUESTION: Is day hospital more effective and less costly than inpatient care for patients with acute psychiatric disorders? Studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2000), Medline (1966–2000), CINAHL (1982–2000), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1980–2000), PsycLIT (1967–2000), and bibliographies of relevant articles. Researchers were contacted to identify unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials that compared acute psychiatric day hospital with standard inpatient care for patients with acute psychiatric disorders (all diagnoses) were selected. Studies were excluded if most participants were 65 years of age, or if participants had substance abuse or organic brain disorder. Data were extracted on study quality, patients, feasibility of day hospital treatment, extent of hospital care, clinical and social outcomes, and costs of care. 9 trials (n=1568) met the selection criteria. Follow up duration ranged from …
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".