MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102699198 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2010.534378

The Predictive Validity of Clinical Ratings of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START)

2010· article· en· W2102699198 on OpenAlexaff
Erika Braithwaite, Yanick Charette, Anne G. Crocker, Andrea Reyes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive validityPsychologyLogistic regressionRisk assessmentVulnerability (computing)Scale (ratio)HarmClinical psychologyMedicineComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increased need to assess and manage risk in inpatient settings, the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) was implemented on a civil psychiatric unit. The goal of the present study was to examine the tool's predictive validity when completed by clinical teams as part of routine practice. Data were collected for 34 patients hospitalized for a minimum of 30 days prior to and after a START evaluation. Several challenging behaviors, such as aggression towards others, self-harm, and substance abuse were assessed using the START Outcomes Scale ( Nicholls et al., 2007 ). Results from multilevel logistic regression and Receiver Operating Characteristics analyses lend partial support for the predictive validity of the START. A limited set of START items combined was significantly better at predicting the challenging behaviors than the original total Strength and Vulnerability scales. Results are discussed in terms of the clinical use of risk assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations89
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental HealthSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207