MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737593827 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017377

Predictors of emergency department use by adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder: a prospective cohort study

2017· article· en· W2737593827 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yona Lunsky, Jonathan A. Weiss, Melissa Paquette‐Smith, Anna Durbin, Ami Tint, Anna M. Palucka, Elspeth Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Mental Health AssociationYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAutism spectrum disorderEmergency departmentProspective cohort studyAutismCohort studyCohortEpidemiologyPsychiatryPediatricsPublic healthFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine predictors of emergency department (ED) visits in a cohort of adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Community-based study from Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Parents reported on their adult sons and daughters with ASD living in the community (n=284). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ED visits for any reason, ED visits for medical reasons and ED visits for psychiatric reasons over 1 year. RESULTS: Among individuals with ASD, those with ED visits for any reason were reported to have greater family distress at baseline (p<0.01), a history of visiting the ED during the year prior (p<0.01) and experienced two or more negative life events at baseline (p<0.05) as compared with those who did not visit the ED. Unique predictors of medical versus psychiatric ED visits emerged. Low neighbourhood income (p<0.01) and living in a rural neighbourhood (p<0.05) were associated with medical but not psychiatric ED visits, whereas a history of aggression (p<0.05) as well as being from an immigrant family (p<0.05) predicted psychiatric but not medical emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of individual and contextual variables may be important for targeting preventative community-based supports for individuals with ASD and their families. In particular, attention should be paid to how caregiver supports, integrative crisis planning and community-based services may assist in preventing or minimising ED use for this vulnerable population.

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)0.001
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207