Ongoing contact for 2 years after discharge was associated with greater survival in patients at risk of post crisis suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motto JA, Bostrom AG. A randomized controlled trial of postcrisis suicide prevention. Psychiatr Serv2001 Jun; 52 : 828 –33 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients at risk of suicide who refuse follow up treatment, is ongoing contact after discharge from a psychiatric inpatient facility more effective than no contact for preventing post crisis suicide? Randomised {allocation not concealed*}†, unblinded*, controlled trial with 15 years of follow up. San Francisco, California, USA. 843 patients (mean age 34 y, 56% women) who had been admitted because of a depressive or suicidal state, and had declined or discontinued treatment in <30 days after discharge. {100% of patients completed the study}†. 389 were allocated to a schedule of regular communications (contact group) and 454 patients were allocated to the no contact group. Patients in … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPsychiatric%2BServices%26rft.stitle%253DPsychiatr.%2BServ.%26rft.aulast%253DMotto%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D52%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D828%26rft.epage%253D833%26rft.atitle%253DA%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%2Bof%2BPostcrisis%2BSuicide%2BPrevention%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ps.52.6.828%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11376235%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ps.52.6.828&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11376235&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F5%2F1%2F19.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000169066800019&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".