Subtyping Service Receipt in Personality Disorder Services in South London: Observational Validation Study Using Latent Profile Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Personality disorders (PDs) are typically associated with higher mental health service use; however, individual patterns of engagement among patients with complex needs are poorly understood. Objective The study aimed to identify subgroups of individuals based on patterns of service receipt in secondary mental health services and examine how routinely collected information is associated with these subgroups. Methods A sample of 3941 patients diagnosed with a personality disorder and receiving care from secondary services in South London was identified using health care records covering an 11-year period from 2007 to 2018. Basic demographic information, service use, and treatment data were included in the analysis. Service use measures included the number of contacts with clinical teams and instances of did-not-attend. Results Using a large sample of 3941 patients with a diagnosis of PD, latent profile analysis identified 2 subgroups characterized by low and high service receipt, denoted as profile 1 (n=2879, 73.05%) and profile 2 (n=1062, 26.95%), respectively. A 2-profile solution (P<.01) was preferred over a 3-profile solution, which was nonsignificant. In unconditional (t3941,3939=19.53; P<.001; B=7.27; 95% CI 6.54-8) and conditional (t3941,3937=−3.31; P<.001; B=−74.94; 95% CI −119.34 to −30.56) models, cluster membership was significantly related to receipt of nursing contacts, over and above other team contacts. Conclusions These results suggest that routinely collected data may be used to classify likely engagement subtypes among patients with complex needs. The algorithm identified factors associated with service use and has the potential to inform clinical decision-making to improve treatment for individuals with complex needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".