Original Research Prevalence and Correlates of Elder Abuse and Neglect in a Geriatric Psychiatry Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the prevalence and correlates of 4 types of elder abuse and ne-glect in a geriatric psychiatry service. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective chart review of new in- and outpa-tients seen by the Montreal General Hospital Division of Geriatric Psychiatry in one calen-dar year. Results: Abuse or neglect was suspected or confirmed in 20 (16%) of 126 patients, com-prising financial abuse in 16 (13%), neglect in 7 (6%), emotional abuse in 5 (4%), physical abuse in 3 (2%), and multiple abuse in 7 (6%). On bivariate analysis, patients living with nonspouse family, friends, or other persons were significantly more likely to have suffered abuse than were those living with their spouse or in a supervised setting (OR 10.5; 95%CI, 2.3 to 47.8); widowed, divorced, or separated patients were significantly more likely to have suffered abuse than were married patients (OR 4.7; 95%CI, 1.02 to 22.0). Nonsignifi-cant trends included female sex (OR 4.1; 95%CI, 0.89 to 18.6); alcohol abuse (OR 2.1; 95%CI, 0.71 to 6.2); behaviour problems (OR 1.9; 95%CI, 0.71 to 5.2); and chronic cogni-tive impairment (OR 1.4; 95%CI, 0.55 to 3.8). Although living situation with nonspouse
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".