An 8‐year study of admissions and discharges to a specialist intellectual disability inpatient unit
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, policy change has led to specialist intellectual disability inpatient bed reduction. Little evidence exists assessing the results for patients admitted to such units. This study evaluates the outcomes of a specialist intellectual disability inpatient unit. METHOD: Gender/age/ethnicity/intellectual disability severity/co-morbid psychiatric/developmental disorders, treatment length and stay data were collected. The health of the nation outcome scales for people with learning disabilities (HoNOS-LD) scores at admission, treatment completion and discharge were recorded. Analysis of these multiple variables and correlations within different patient groups was investigated using various statistical tests. RESULTS: Of 169/176 patients (2010-2018), admission to discharge, HoNOS-LD global and all individual items score decreased significantly, for all patient categories. Treatment completion to discharge duration was significant for the whole cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study of intellectual disability inpatient outcomes. Discharge from the hospital appears not associated with duration of treatment. Using HoNOS-LD to demonstrate treatment effectiveness is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 it