Geropsychiatric consultation in a general hospital in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to characterize clinically significant issues in a psychiatric consultation service for geriatric inpatients in a general hospital in Taiwan. This was a case-control study. During a 5-month period, 100 geriatric (age > or =65 years) inpatients consecutively referred for consultation-liaison psychiatric service from non-psychiatric departments formed the study group. Another 100 medical inpatients, also referred for consultation-liaison to the psychiatric service, but aged 17-50, formed the control (non-geriatric) group. The diagnosis, demography, reason for referral, symptomatology, and other clinical characteristics were determined by consensus between two psychiatrists. Psychiatric diagnosis was made according to criteria in the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The geropsychiatric consultation rate was 0.9%. Geriatric patients constituted 20.1% of all psychiatric referrals. Common reasons for referral of geriatric inpatients were confusion (32%), depression (17%), disturbing behaviors (14%), and psychosis (14%). The most common psychiatric disorder among geriatric patients was an organic mental disorder (79%), followed by a depressive disorder (13%). More geriatric patients suffered from cancers and cerebrovascular diseases than non-geriatric patients. The geriatric group was more likely to have multiple physical illnesses. Organic mental disorder and depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric diagnoses in the geropsychiatric consultation service of the authors. In the authors' experience, both psychotropic medication treatment and psychosocial intervention are important in geropsychiatric consultation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".