MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W96448370

A review of physical and mental health in homeless persons.

2001· review· en· W96448370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Willem H. J. Martens

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryMental healthPublic healthMedicineSubstance abuseDepression (economics)Personality disordersPrevalence of mental disordersSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)MEDLINEEpidemiologyGerontologyPsychologyPersonality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the physical and mental status in homeless people. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE database search covering 5 decades was supplemented by tracing back through references from existing review work. Over 200 articles were extracted, and 106 were selected for review. MAIN FINDINGS: Homeless persons suffer frequently from physical health problems like tuberculosis, asthma, bronchitis, HIV infection, and as a consequence, they run an increased risk for premature mortality. The prevalence of mental disorders among homeless individuals varies from 80-95% in the USA, Australia, Canada, Norway, and Germany to 25-33% in Ireland and Spain. The most prominent mental disorders among the homeless, which vary from country to country, are depression, affective disorders, substance abuse, psychotic disorders, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. CONCLUSION: Homelessness is a major public health problem that should have our special interest.

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)0.002
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations129
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207