Clinical acuity of repeat pediatric mental health presentations to the emergency department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined whether clinical acuity changed in children and youth with repeated emergency department (ED) visits for mental illness. A secondary, exploratory objective was to examine characteristics associated with clinical acuity. METHOD: We conducted a four-year historical cohort study reviewing data from 1,033 ED presentations by 474 patients (≤17 years) for mood disorders, neurotic/stress-related disorders, and psychosis-related illnesses. We used a multivariable generalized linear mixed model to examine the relationship between clinical acuity (defined by triage level at presentation) and length of time since initial ED visit. Interactions between diagnosis group and age group, sex, and visiting timing were also examined. Explanatory variables (patient demography, diagnosis, disposition, institutional classification and location) were entered into the model to explore their relationship to clinical acuity. RESULTS: Clinical acuity did not change between ED visits for children with mood disorders, neurotic/stress-related disorders, or psychosis-related illnesses. The median time to ED return was 7 days. Several characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of increased clinical acuity at presentation: being male, presenting to the ED with a mood disorder, and attendance to an urban-based ED. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat ED visits for several pediatric mental illnesses were not a result of destabilized conditions. Further investigation of the relationship between patient characteristics, available community services, and patterned mental health care use is needed to clarify ED utilization patterns.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".