MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777945649 · doi:10.1111/acem.13368

Protocolized Laboratory Screening for the Medical Clearance of Psychiatric Patients in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2777945649 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSUNY Downstate Medical CenterState University of New York
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentObservational studyMEDLINEMedical laboratoryEmergency medicinePsychiatryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) patients with psychiatric chief complaints undergo medical screening to rule out underlying or comorbid medical illnesses prior to transfer to a psychiatric facility. This systematic review attempts to determine the clinical utility of protocolized laboratory screening for the streamlined medical clearance of ED psychiatric patients by determining the clinical significance of individual laboratory results. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus using the search terms "emergency department, psychiatry, diagnostic tests, laboratories, studies, testing, screening, and clearance" up to June 2017 for studies on adult psychiatric patients. This systematic review follows the recommendations of Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement. The quality of each study was rated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: Four independent reviewers identified 2,847 publications. We extracted data from three studies (n = 629 patients). Included studies defined an abnormal test result as any laboratory result that falls out of the normal range. A laboratory test result was deemed as "clinically significant" only when patient disposition or treatment plan was changed because of that test result. Across the three studies the prevalence of clinically significant results were low (0.0%-0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of clinically significant laboratory test results were low, suggesting that according to the available literature, routine laboratory testing does not significantly change patient disposition. Due to the paucity of available research on this subject, we could not determine the clinical utility of protocolized laboratory screening tests for medical clearance of psychiatric patients in the ED. Future research on the utility of routine laboratory testing is important in a move toward shared decision making and patient-centered health care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.297 · 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