Cross‐sectional and within‐subject seasonality and regularity of hospitalizations: A population study in mood disorders and schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Seasonal peaks in hospitalizations for mood disorders and schizophrenia are well recognized and often replicated. The within-subject tendency to experience illness episodes in the same season, that is, seasonal course, is much less established, as certain individuals may temporarily meet criteria for seasonal course purely by chance. AIMS: In this population, prospective cohort study, we investigated whether between and within-subject seasonal patterns of hospitalizations occurred more frequently than would be expected by chance. METHODS: Using a compulsory, standardized national register of hospitalizations, we analyzed all admissions for mood disorders and schizophrenia in the Czech Republic between 1994 and 2013. We used bootstrap tests to compare the observed numbers of (a) participants with seasonal/regular course and (b) hospitalizations in individual months against empirical distributions obtained by simulations. RESULTS: (11) = 70.34, P < .001). Significantly more participants than would be expected by chance, had two subsequent rehospitalizations in the same 90 days in different years (7.36%, bootstrap P < .01) or after a regular, but non-seasonal interval (6.07%, bootstrap P < .001). The proportion of participants with two consecutive hospitalizations in the same season was below chance level (7.06%). CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric hospitalizations were unevenly distributed throughout the year (cross-sectional seasonality), with evidence for regularity, but not seasonality of hospitalizations within subjects. Our data do not support the validity of seasonal pattern specifier. Season may be a general risk factor, which increases the risk of hospitalizations across psychiatric participants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".