MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042303734 · doi:10.1093/ageing/30.5.415

The impact of geriatric post-discharge services on mental state

2001· article· en· W2042303734 on OpenAlexaff
Martín G. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEMental healthGerontologyPopulationGeriatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of geriatric post-discharge services on mental state. METHODS: Three computer databases, MEDLINE, HealthSTAR and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant articles; the bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched for additional references. RESULTS: 11 trials were located that met the four inclusion criteria: (i) original study; (ii) published in English or French; (iii) controlled trial (randomized or non-randomized) of a geriatric post-discharge service; and (iv) including at least one measure of mental state. All trials met most of the validity criteria for intervention studies of the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Three trials reported a small effect on emotional state or self-perceived health and eight trials reported no effect. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that geriatric post-discharge services have an impact on the mental state of aged subjects. Future services and studies should be designed to address the issue of mental state outcomes in this population.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207