Frequency of clinical appointments in subjects with emergent suicidal ideation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder strongly associated with suicidal behaviour up to 20-50 times higher than those in the general population. However, treatments from primary healthcare workers and mental health specialists may improve daily function and increase recovery. Objectives Our study aims to investigate if the frequency of interactions with healthcare specialists affects suicidal ideation for patients with schizophrenia. Methods 84 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder were recruited from the Centre of Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Canada. Patient medical charts were reviewed to determine the number of therapeutic interactions in two periods: up to three months from baseline, and retrospectively 3 months before baseline. Results 19 patients with worsening suicidal ideation had an average of 5.1 more visits following baseline (SD = 6.94), compared to 64 patients with non-emergent SI had 12.0 more visits following baseline (SD = 18.8). Conclusions Patients with worsening suicidal ideation had fewer visits from healthcare professionals as compared to those without worsening suicidal ideation. However, further research is necessary to determine the correlation between healthcare visits and suicidal ideation in this population. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".