MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389444408 · doi:10.1177/23743735231218866

An Emergency Department Survey on Research Participation in the Patient With Suicidal Ideation or Suicide Attempt

2023· article· en· W4389444408 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Skoblenick, Jennifer Swainson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient Experience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsMisericordia Community HospitalAlberta Health ServicesRoyal Alexandra HospitalWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuicidal ideationEmergency departmentSuicide ideationInterviewPsychiatryComplaintSuicide attemptMedicinePopulationPsychologyMedical emergencySuicide preventionFamily medicinePoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The patient expressing suicidal ideation is a common mental health presentation in the emergency department (ED) but a notion exists that this psychiatric crisis precludes them from research participation. In order to better understand the potential research participation of suicidal patients, this study surveyed patients in the ED with suicide attempt or ideation. This was an anonymized survey study interviewing 50 patients in a tertiary care ED with a chief complaint of suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. A script was read by the research assistant regarding a hypothetical research study using ketamine to treat suicidality in the ED and asked to rate their interest in participation in the study as well as their interest in a 1-week follow-up call. Most patients (84%) reported that they would be interested in participating in this research project while 96% of all 50 patients would be interested in a follow-up phone call at 1 week. The data from this study should help other emergency medicine and psychiatry researchers advance projects in this underserved ED patient population.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient ExperienceSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207