MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043325572 · doi:10.1080/13811118.2011.615694

Childhood Exposure to Caregiver Suicidal Behavior and Risk for Adult Suicide Attempts: Findings from a National Survey

2011· article· en· W2043325572 on OpenAlexafffund
Rae Spiwak, Jina Pagura, Shay‐Lee Bolton, Brenda Elias, Katja Beesdo‐Baum, Roselind Lieb, Jitender Sareen

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Suicide Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuicide preventionPoison controlSuicidal behaviorOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionMedical emergencyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate the association between exposure to caregiver suicidality and subsequent adult suicide attempt (SA). Data came from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Wave 2 (n = 34,653). Respondents were asked if they had a caregiver attempt or complete suicide during childhood. Logistic regression examined associations between SA and caregiver suicidality. Compared to individuals with no suicidality, risk for lifetime SA was higher for individuals that were exposed to a SA (15.6%, [OR] = 5.86, 95% [CI] = 4.57-7.51) and for those who experienced a death by suicide (6.1%, [OR] = 2.08, CI = 1.32-3.26]. Associations remained significant after controlling for demographics, Axis I and II disorders and childhood adversity. Individuals with exposure to suicidality are at increased odds for SA.

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)0.003
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Suicide ResearchSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207