MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162720262 · doi:10.1192/pb.27.1.7

Acute mental health admissions in inner London: changes in patient characteristics and clinical admission thresholds between 1988 and 1998

2002· article· en· W2162720262 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Fitzpatrick, C. J. Thompson, Harry Hemingway, Thomas R. E. Barnes, Anna Higgitt, C. Molloy, Sally Hargreaves

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineMental healthHospital admissionMental health serviceAcute hospitalPopulationEmergency medicinePsychiatryHealth careInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims and Method We undertook a retrospective case-note review of three cohorts of mental health admissions to determine the extent to which patient and service characteristics changed between 1988 and 1998. Changes in clinical admission thresholds were investigated by a psychiatrists' review of handwritten medical admission assessments. Results Patients admitted in 1998 were demographically less stable and clinically more complex than those admitted 10 years earlier. Clinical admission thresholds remained consistent. Clinical Implications Our findings suggest that the perceived increase in pressure on psychiatric services over this period was a response to a change in population need. This study highlights important questions about the clinical decision-making process leading to use of alternatives to admission and the appropriateness of acute admissions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric BulletinSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207