MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411020333 · doi:10.5770/cgj.28.832

Abstracts from the 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Canadian Academy of Geriatric Psychiatry and Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health

2025· article· en· W4411020333 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMental healthPsychiatryGeriatric psychiatryGerontologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Older adults living with severe mental illness (SMI) represent a vulnerable and complex patient population.Deinstitutionalization laid the groundwork for intensive outreach services designed for those with SMI, yet these programs have largely focused on adults.While reviews to date have examined community-based outreach for older adults with mental illness, none have focused on the SMI population.This presentation will describe the findings of our scoping review, which aimed to map the existing peer-reviewed literature on intensive outreach services for older adults with SMI.These findings will be presented alongside a discussion of barriers and facilitators to developing a novel psychogeriatric assertive community treatment (ACT) team after four years in practice.Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched for pertinent literature between 1990 and 2023.Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts.Data was extracted by one reviewer with independent review from a second author.Sixteen studies were selected for inclusion based on full text review.Results: Most studies were descriptive (N = 8).There were three randomized controlled trials (N= 3) and three quasi-experimental designs (N = 3).The majority of interventions involved multidisciplinary team-based services.Four programs included medical specialists.There was a wide range of allied health supports.Six programs were specifically adapted from the ACT model.Conclusions: Discussion will focus on describing the various models of care as revealed from our scoping review.We will further discuss lessons learned from four years of practice with a novel psychogeriatric ACT team in Toronto.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207