P-1369 - Prevalence of treated somatoform disorders among canadian children and adolescents: a population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we examine among those under the age of 18 years having somatoform disorders, the relationship between physical health and mental health costs in comparison to those with other psychiatric disorders. Based on approximately 10 Million billing records, we compared the average number of visits and average costs per unique individual for “physical diagnoses” (non-psychiatric) and psychiatric diagnoses over the 16 year study period across case and comparison groups. Here, we report the 16 year prevalence of somatoform disorders in the population. Somatoform disorders ranked 15th in terms of overall cost in the comparison group which was randomly selected from the physician billing data pool. Somatoform disorders ranked 22nd of 25 in terms of frequency of diagnosis. The cumulative frequency of somatoform disorders over the 16 year interval for individuals was 169 within the 26,392 cases and 479 within the 205,281 comparisons, representing approximately 0.8% of the sampled population total population in catchment ∼300,000). The prevalence of treated Somatoform disorders indicates that they are are relatively rare in the study population. Lieb et al. (2002) found a lifetime prevalence of 12.5% of any somatoform condition in German adolescents. Kebede and Alem (1999) reported a one month point prevalence of 2.5% for Ethiopian youth. Somatoform disorders are most commonly seen in children and adolescents and appeared to be diagnosed much less frequently among Canadian children and adolescents. Differences are likely based on sampling methodology used epidemiological surveys compared to population utilization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".