MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203491616 · doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01392-w

Can the adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) checklist be utilized to predict emergency department visits among children and adolescents?

2021· article· en· W3203491616 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Asmita Bhattarai, Gina Dimitropoulos, Brian Marriott, Jaime Paget, Andrew G. M. Bulloch, Suzanne Tough, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicineMental healthChecklistEmergency departmentPopulationLogistic regressionAdolescent healthSuicidal ideationPsychiatryPoison controlSuicide preventionEmergency medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Extensive literature has shown an association of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) with adverse health outcomes; however, its ability to predict events or stratify risks is less known. Individuals with mental illness and ACE exposure have been shown to visit emergency departments (ED) more often than those in the general population. This study thus examined the ability of the ACEs checklist to predict ED visits within the subsequent year among children and adolescents presenting to mental health clinics with pre-existing mental health issues. METHODS: The study analyzed linked data (n = 6100) from two databases provided by Alberta Health Services (AHS). The Regional Access and Intake System (RAIS 2016-2018) database provided data on the predictors (ACE items, age, sex, residence, mental health program type, and primary diagnosis) regarding children and adolescents (aged 0-17 years) accessing addiction and mental health services within Calgary Zone, and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS 2016-2019) database provided data on ED visits. A 25% random sample of the data was reserved for validation purposes. Two Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) logistic regression models, each employing a different method to tune the shrinkage parameter lambda (namely cross-validated and adaptive) and performing 10-fold cross-validation for a set of 100 lambdas in each model were examined. RESULTS: The adaptive LASSO model had a slightly better fit in the validation dataset than the cross-validated model; however, it still demonstrated poor discrimination (AUC 0.60, sensitivity 37.8%, PPV 49.6%) and poor calibration (over-triaged in low-risk and under-triaged in high-risk subgroups). The model's poor performance was evident from an out-of-sample deviance ratio of - 0.044. CONCLUSION: The ACEs checklist did not perform well in predicting ED visits among children and adolescents with existing mental health concerns. The diverse causes of ED visits may have hindered accurate predictions, requiring more advanced statistical procedures. Future studies exploring other machine learning approaches and including a more extensive set of childhood adversities and other important predictors may produce better predictions. Furthermore, despite highly significant associations being observed, ACEs may not be deterministic in predicting health-related events at the individual level, such as general ED use.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207