MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suicidal behaviour in early psychosis

2004· article· en· W2104075818 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Addington, Janet L. Williams, Julie Young, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParasuicidePsychiatryPsychosisPoison controlSuicide preventionDepression (economics)Injury preventionPopulationSuicide attemptPsychologyMedicineCohortClinical psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This was to determine the prevalence of suicidal behaviours prior to and during the first year of treatment in a comprehensive early psychosis program (EPP) and to identify predictors of suicidal behaviour. METHOD: In a cohort study of 238 subjects, patients were assessed at initial presentation to an EPP and 1 year later. Measures included a range of demographic variables, suicide attempts, depression, positive and negative symptoms, social functioning and substance misuse. RESULTS: Although 15.1% attempted suicide prior to program entry, only 2.9% made an attempt in the year after program entry and 0.4% completed suicide. No further attempts were seen in those with previous parasuicide. These rates are lower than other published rates for first-episode patients. CONCLUSION: It is possible that specifically designed first-episode programs can reduce the suicidal behaviour in this high-risk population. The low prevalence of attempted suicide makes modeling predictors difficult.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations111
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207