MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614669043 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000000687

Death by Suicide Within 1 Week of Hospital Discharge

2017· article· en· W2614669043 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Natalie Riblet, Brian Shiner, Bradley V. Watts, Peter D. Mills, Brett Rusch, Robin R. Hemphill

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVikram Sarabhai Space CentreMcGill UniversityDartmouth College
KeywordsMedicineSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthMedical emergencyHealth careHospital dischargeInjury preventionMental healthSuicide RiskPsychiatryPoison controlEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a high risk for death by suicide after discharge from an inpatient mental health unit. To better understand system and organizational factors associated with postdischarge suicide, we reviewed root cause analysis reports of suicide within 7 days of discharge from across all Veterans Health Administration inpatient mental health units between 2002 and 2015. There were 141 reports of suicide within 7 days of discharge, and a large proportion (43.3%, n = 61) followed an unplanned discharge. Root causes fell into three major themes including challenges for clinicians and patients after the established process of care, awareness and communication of suicide risk, and flaws in the established process of care. Flaws in the design and execution of processes of care as well as deficits in communication may contribute to postdischarge suicide. Inpatient teams should be aware of the potentially heightened risk for suicide among patients with unplanned discharges.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207