Characteristics of older patients in the largest French psychiatric emergency centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite an increasing number of adults older than 60 years with psychiatric disorders, there are few studies on older patients in psychiatric emergencies and no European data. We aimed to describe the population of patients aged 60 years and older who presented to the main French psychiatric emergency centre and identify predictors of psychiatric hospitalization. This monocentric study included 300 consecutive patients aged 60 years and older. Patients presenting because of psychiatric emergencies were frequently female and lived autonomously. More than 40% had a history of at least one psychiatric hospitalization and 44% had consulted a psychiatrist in the previous 6 months. The most common reasons for consultation were depression, anxiety, sleep disorders and suicidal thoughts. Psychiatric disorders were mainly mood disorders; neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders; and schizophrenic, schizotypal and delusional disorders. Only 10% had a diagnosis of organic mental disorders. Overall, 39% of the patients were admitted to the psychiatric hospital. Factors predicting hospitalization were a history of psychiatric hospitalization, suicidal thoughts and a diagnosis of a mood disorder or schizophrenia/schizotypal/delusional disorder. In conclusion, among people aged 60 years and older who consulted for psychiatric emergencies, 39% had to be hospitalized in psychiatry and only psychiatric factors influenced the decision to hospitalize. Our study highlights the need for further studies of older people in psychiatric emergencies in Europe, to anticipate the needs of this specific population and adapt multidisciplinary mental health care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".