MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7065487077

Estimating the trends in attempted suicide using administrative data and patient chart review: a pilot study

2016· dissertation· en· W7065487077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageSuicide preventionComplaintPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthSuicide attempt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide is a major public health problem and attempted suicide is a known risk factor of suicide death.There is an accepted figure that between 10 to 20 attempts occur for every death by suicide.However, reliable data on attempted suicide seeking medical assistance are scarce and unrepresentative notwithstanding advances in medical charting.Many have tried to contravene this by novel ways of taking the census of attempted suicide with interesting results but few were applicable to very large population.Our study goals are firstly to estimate the level of underestimation of attempted suicide treated in hospital settings; secondly to find, by the adjunction of the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) used by nurses in emergency triage, to usually used administrative databases a new affordable and dependable way to identify more accurately the number of attempted suicide treated in hospitals.Thirdly, this study seeks to prove that lethality is the main indicator of attempted suicide coding without regards to intention.This study used administrative data that covered physical and psychological diagnosis that could have been or induced by a suicide attempt.The second step added nursing triage notes that suggested that the main complaint of the patient was related to suicidal behavior.Then, attention was brought to cases bearing exclusive suicide attempt diagnosis and if their first unit of hospitalization was intensive care unit to verify if lethality was meaningful in the recording of their diagnosis.This study found that 95% of the attempted suicides seeking medical assistance were not coded as such and their physical or psychological diagnosis was the main diagnosis appearing in the administrative database.CTAS was efficient in locating attempts of low to moderate lethality in emergency department but was not efficient for high lethality case as these would bypass nursing triage and receive immediate medical care.For monitoring purpose, usual administrative databases and CTAS should be associated with another means that could identify suicide attempts with high lethality to give a more realistic estimate of this phenomenon.This study also found that lethality is a major factor in the labelling of attempted suicide but there seems to be other elements interfering other then intentions as only a quarter of very lethal cases were coded as attempted suicides.I would like to thank Dr Gustavo Turecki and Dr Elham Rahme for giving me the instrumental support to pursue my studies.It was appreciated.I also

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations→French-language works237,207→