MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019662281 · doi:10.1521/suli.2010.40.4.307

Increased Risk of Suicidal Ideation in Smokers and Former Smokers Compared to Never Smokers: Evidence from the Baltimore ECA Follow‐Up Study

2010· article· en· W2019662281 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Diana E. Clarke, William W. Eaton, Kenneth R. Petronis, Jean Y. Ko, Anjan Chatterjee, James C. Anthony

Bibliographic record

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuicidal ideationMedicineIncidence (geometry)PsychiatryAnxietyDepression (economics)Smoking cessationSuicide preventionDemographyPoison controlClinical psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence rate of suicidal ideation among current and former smokers versus never smokers is not known. In this study, the age-adjusted incidence of suicidal ideation was highest among current smokers, followed by former, then never smokers. The adjusted hazard for suicide ideation was 2.22 (95%CI = 1.48, 3.33) and 1.19 (95%CI = 0.78, 1.82) for current and former smokers, respectively, compared to never smokers. Results indicate that current smokers have increased risks of suicidal ideation above and beyond the risk for never and former smokers regardless of age, gender, history of depressive disorder or anxiety symptoms, and alcohol abuse/dependence. Smoking cessation might be beneficial for some suicide prevention efforts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations56
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207