MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417274353 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2025.27734

Improved Outcomes in Mental Healthcare Using Artificial Intelligence

2025· article· en· W4417274353 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrew Lustig, Masooma Hassan, Keith D’Souza, Adam Tasca, Tania Tajirian, David Gratzer

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaToronto General HospitalCanadian Patient Safety InstituteKrembil FoundationArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Mental healthMental healthcareHealth careClinical governanceAddictionBest practiceCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) presents opportunities and challenges in post-discharge psychiatric care. Leveraging structured data and machine learning, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health aims to predict adverse outcomes, including readmissions, among patients recently discharged from psychiatric units. By identifying high-risk individuals, AI can guide referrals to resource-intensive outpatient clinics, enhancing continuity of care and improving outcomes. A governance framework addressing ethics, transparency and fairness underpins the development and implementation process. The study emphasizes using interpretable AI models over black-box systems to foster trust and clinical utility, aligning AI advancements with ethical mental health practices.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→