MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401346151 · doi:10.1177/00302228241272653

Medical Chart Review to Explore Suicidal and Self-Harm Thoughts and Behavior Among Psychiatric Inpatients

2024· article· en· W4401346151 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bryce E. Stoliker, Temilola Balogun, Haile Wangler, Mansfield Mela, Lisa M. Jewell, Brent P. Nixon, Kingsley Ezechinyere Nwachukwu

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan HospitalSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPsychiatrySuicide preventionPsychiatric hospitalMedicineMedical recordPoison controlInjury preventionPublic healthOccupational safety and healthPsychologyMedical emergencyNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide and self-harm events are elevated in psychiatric inpatient populations. In this study, health data were retrospectively collected from the medical records of 183 patients (97 civil and 86 forensic) who had resided in, or been admitted to, a public psychiatric hospital in Saskatchewan, Canada from April 1 to December 31, 2021. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted to estimate prevalence and correlates of (non-fatal) suicide and self-harm events, including recent and lifetime occurrences, according to patients' health information. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of patients had any record of non-fatal suicide or self-harm events, including a lifetime history of self-harm (42%) and suicidal behavior (37%) as well as recent self-harm (24%) and suicidal (31%) thoughts or behaviors. Forensic patients were significantly more likely to have a record of suicide and self-harm events. This study emphasizes the need for further research into the course of suicidality and self-harm in psychiatric inpatients.

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)0.006
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207