MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7058114777

Long-Term Patterns of Acute Mental Health Service Use After a First Episode of Psychosis: Examining Ongoing Psychiatric Care Beyond the Critical Period

2021· article· en· W7058114777 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAcute PsychosisQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychosisIntervention (counseling)Mental health serviceService (business)Acute care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The long-term patterns of acute mental health service use after treatment in an early psychosis intervention (EPI) program are not well known. The objective of this thesis was to investigate the long-term patterns of acute mental health service use. We used health administrative data to examine the patterns and risk factors associated with acute mental health service use over the of 5- to 10-year period post-EPI admission. Between years 5 to 10 post-EPI admission, approximately one quarter of people contacted acute mental health services. Factors associated with acute mental health service use during this period included younger age at admission, and prior use of acute mental health services in the first 5 years post-EPI admission. Our findings show that a subset of people with psychotic disorders continue to have contact with acute mental health services over the longer-term and suggests that the service needs of people recovering from psychosis may not be met.

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)0.005
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→