MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114799029 · doi:10.1192/pb.bp.110.033266

UK extended Medical Assessment Programme for ex-service personnel: the first 150 individuals seen

2012· article· en· W2114799029 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Palmer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Psychiatrist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitary serviceService (business)InterimMental healthExaggerationService memberMilitary personnelMedical recordMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryFamily medicineBusinessPolitical scienceLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims and method To describe an interim service set up to examine the breadth of UK ex-service personnel's concerns in relation to their mental health and military service and provide a record of the first 150 individuals assessed following conformation of military service and examination of all available military and civilian medical records. Results The majority of attendees were White male ex-soldiers. Average age, service and time to assessment were 44.5, 15.8 and 11.7 years respectively. Two-thirds were receiving help from the National Health Service and ex-service nongovernmental organisations. Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder were similar to previous UK studies. Obsessional symptoms were of relevance to the clinical presentation in a third. Fabrication and/or exaggeration occurred in about 10%. Clinical implications The spread of diagnoses and delay in help-seeking are similar to civilians. The link between mental disorders and military service is seldom straightforward and fabrication or exaggeration is difficult for civilians to recognise. Verification and contextualisation of service using contemporaneous service medical records is important given the possible occupational origin of mental health conditions.

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)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe PsychiatristSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207