Concordance between admission and discharge diagnosis of a child and adolescent psychiatry inpatient unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatry is arguably the most medical practice that is affected by culture. The pediatric literature is sparse with respect to the differences between child psychiatric units in different cultures and different countries. In this study, we aim to investigate the discordance between admission diagnosis and discharge diagnosis for child psychiatric disorders.METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 206 patients admitted to a university hospital inpatient child and adolescent psychiatry unit in Ontario, Canada. The data extracted from electronic charts were age, gender, DSM-IV-based diagnosis at admission, living arrangement before admission, length of stay (minimum one day), post-discharge diagnosis, and post-discharge outcomes.RESULTS: There was 75% agreement with the discharge diagnosis. We found strong negative and positive associations between conduct disorder at discharge and the prescription of antipsychotics (+), antidepressants (-), and stimulants (-), and there was a strong association between a conduct disorder (CD) diagnosis and medication-free status. The powerful effect size of stimulant medication was specific to the association between a primary diagnosis of ADHD (vs. not-ADHD) and stimulant medication (c2=127.5, df=1, phi=0.79, P<0.0001).CONCLUSIONS: We have found a significant agreement between admission and discharge diagnosis. It is suggested that the inpatient stay helped to refine the formulation and to improve the child’s well-being.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".