MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414643873 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001852

Detection of Diabetes and Hypertension Comorbidities Among Adult Psychiatric Inpatients

2025· article· en· W4414643873 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew L. Goldman, Megan McDaniel, Christina Mangurian, Tom Corbeil, Lisa B. Dixon, Susan M. Essock, Eric Frimpong, Franco Mascayano, Mark Olfson, Marleen Radigan, Ian Rodgers, Fei Tang, Melanie M. Wall, Rui Wang, Thomas E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusComorbidityMEDLINEHospital admissionEpidemiologyPsychiatric diagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study examined adult psychiatric inpatients diagnosed with diabetes or hypertension before admission who then had these diagnoses missing from discharge records. METHODS: We analyzed Medicaid records for adults admitted to inpatient psychiatry in New York State hospitals between 2012 and 2013. We included 6,381 patients with records indicating preexisting diabetes or hypertension in the 12 months before admission. Logistic regression analyses identified factors at the patient, hospital, and system levels related to detection or omission of the diagnosis of diabetes or hypertension upon hospital discharge. RESULTS: Preexisting diabetes or hypertension was missed in 29% and 36% among inpatients, respectively. Diagnoses were more frequently missed in people who were younger, experiencing homelessness, with fewer claims and with claims longer than 30 days before admission. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive admission processes in inpatient psychiatric settings to ensure appropriate detection and treatment of medical comorbidities.

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)0.004
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207