Improving Risk Assessment with Suicidal Patients: A Preliminary Evaluation of the Clinical Utility of <em>The Scale for Impact of Suicidality - Management, Assessment and Planning of Care (SIS-MAP)</em>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a number of suicide risk assessment tools are available to clinicians, the high levels of suicide still evident in society suggest a clear need for new strategies in order to facilitate the prevention of suicidal behaviors. The present study examined the utilization of a new structured clinical interview called the Scale for Impact of Suicidality Management, Assessment and Planning of Care (SIS-MAP). SIS-MAP ratings were obtained from a group of incoming psychiatric patients over a 6-month period at Regional Mental Health Care, St. Thomas, Ontario. A canonical discriminant function analysis resulted in a total 74.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified based on admission status (admitted or not; Wilks Lambda = .749, p< 0.001). The specificity of the scale was 78.1% while the sensitivity of the scale was 66.7%. Additionally, mean total scores on the scale were used to establish clinical cut- offs to facilitate future level of care decisions. Preliminary analysis suggests the SIS-MAP is a valid and reliable tool in determining the level of psychiatric care needed for adults with suicidal ideation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".