Suicide in the oldest old: an observational study and cluster analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The older population are at a high risk for suicide. This study sought to learn more about the characteristics of suicide in the oldest-old and to use a cluster analysis to determine if oldest-old suicide victims assort into clinically meaningful subgroups. METHODS: Data were collected from a coroner's chart review of suicide victims in Toronto from 1998 to 2011. We compared two age groups (65-79 year olds, n = 335, and 80+ year olds, n = 191) and then conducted a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis using Ward's method to identify distinct clusters in the 80+ group. RESULTS: The younger and older age groups differed according to marital status, living circumstances and pattern of stressors. The cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters in the 80+ group. Cluster 1 was the largest (n = 124) and included people who were either married or widowed who had significantly more depression and somewhat more medical health stressors. In contrast, cluster 2 (n = 50) comprised people who were almost all single and living alone with significantly less identified depression and slightly fewer medical health stressors. All members of cluster 3 (n = 17) lived in a retirement residence or nursing home, and this group had the highest rates of depression, dementia, other mental illness and past suicide attempts. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to use the cluster analysis technique to identify meaningful subgroups among suicide victims in the oldest-old. The results reveal different patterns of suicide in the older population that may be relevant for clinical care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".