MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944796473 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00301

Trajectories of Dynamic Risk Factors as Predictors of Violence and Criminality in Patients Discharged From Mental Health Services: A Longitudinal Study Using Growth Mixture Modeling

2019· article· en· W2944796473 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélissa Beaudoin, Stéphane Potvin, Laura Dellazizzo, Mimosa Luigi, Charles‐Édouard Giguère, Alexandre Dumais

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsInstitut Philippe Pinel de MontréalUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychiatryPoison controlPsychopathyPsychologyCannabisLogistic regressionLongitudinal studyInjury preventionPolysubstance dependenceClinical psychologyMental healthMedicineSubstance abusePersonalityMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Individuals with severe mental illnesses are at greater risk of offences and violence, though the relationship remains unclear due to the interplay of static and dynamic risk factors. Static factors have generally been emphasized, leaving little room for temporal changes in risk. Hence, this longitudinal study aims to identify subgroups of psychiatric populations at risk of violence and criminality to reduce these behaviors, considering the dynamic changes of symptomatology and substance use. Method: A total of 825 patients from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study having completed 5 post-discharge follow-ups were analyzed. Individuals were classified into outcome trajectories (violence and criminality). Trajectories were computed for each substance (cannabis, alcohol and cocaine, alone or combined) and for symptomatology and inputted as dynamic factors, along with other demographic and psychiatric static factors, into binary logistic regressions for predicting violence and criminality. Best predictors were then identified using backward elimination and ROC curves were calculated for both models. Results: Two trajectories were found for violence (Low vs. High violence). Best predictors for belonging in the High-violence group were low verbal intelligence (baseline), higher psychopathy (baseline) and anger (mean) scores, persistant cannabis use (alone) and persistent moderate affective symptoms. The model’s AUC was 0.773. Two trajectories were also chosen as being optimal for criminality. The final model to predict High-criminality yielded to an AUC of 0.788, retaining as predictors male sex, lower educational level, higher psychopathy score (baseline), persistent polysubstance use (cannabis, cocaine and alcohol) and persistent cannabis use (alone). Both models were moderately predictive of outcomes. Conclusion: Static factors identified as predictors are consistent with previously published literature. Concerning dynamic factors, unexpectedly, cannabis alone was an independent co-occurring variable in the violence model, as well as affective symptoms. For criminality, our results are novel because a very there are very few studies on criminal behaviors in a psychiatric non-forensic population. In conclusion, these results emphasize the need to study more the impact of longitudinal patterns of specific substance use and high affective symptoms, and to evaluate more profoundly the predictors of crime, separately from violence.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207