MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393987900 · doi:10.1093/aje/kwae030

Using unsupervised clustering approaches to identify common mental health profiles and associated mental health-care service-use patterns in Ontario, Canada

2024· article· en· W4393987900 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christa Orchard, Elizabeth Lin, Laura C. Rosella, Peter Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Ontario
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMental healthPopulationHealth careDistressCluster analysisMental distressMedical diagnosisPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryGerontologyClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health is a complex, multidimensional concept that goes beyond clinical diagnoses, including psychological distress, life stress, and well-being. In this study, we aimed to use unsupervised clustering approaches to identify multidimensional mental health profiles that exist in the population, and their associated service-use patterns. The data source was the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health, linked to administrative health-care data; all Ontario, Canada, adult respondents were included. We used a partitioning around medoids clustering algorithm with Gower's proximity to identify groups with distinct combinations of mental health indicators and described them according to their sociodemographic and service-use characteristics. We identified 4 groups with distinct mental health profiles, including 1 group that met the clinical threshold for a depressive diagnosis, with the remaining 3 groups expressing differences in positive mental health, life stress, and self-rated mental health. The 4 groups had different age, employment, and income profiles and exhibited differential access to mental health-care services. This study represents the first step in identifying complex profiles of mental health at the population level in Ontario. Further research is required to better understand the potential causes and consequences of belonging to each of the mental health profiles identified. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207