MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413051004 · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.20240610

Integrating Social Determinants of Health Into Clinical Formulations: The Need for a Biaxial System in the <i>DSM</i> and Psychiatry

2025· article· en· W4413051004 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. Erlich, Michael B. First, Rachel M. Talley, Lisa B. Dixon, Jeffrey Berlant, Matthew L. Edwards, Marcus A. Moreno, Nicole Kozloff, Mary F. Brunette, Samuel G. Siris, David A. Adler

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Work & HealthColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveSocial determinants of healthPsychologyHealth carePsychiatryFocus (optics)Public relationsPublic healthPolitical scienceMedicineNursingEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although social determinants of health (SDOH) have a significant impact on health outcomes and many are already included among the “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention” in the DSM-5, general awareness of these codes and the importance of using them to communicate SDOH has not occurred. This Open Forum proposes that the DSM-5 adopt a biaxial system of assessment to enhance their consideration and reporting. A biaxial approach, the authors argue, when combined with financial incentives, will increase the likelihood of SDOH reporting and potentially improve 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 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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0060.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207