Method of Suicide Attempt and Reaction to Survival as Predictors of Repeat Suicide Attempts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reaction to survival of a suicide attempt and method of the index attempt predicted repeat suicide attempts within 6 months. METHOD: Data came from the Suicide Assessment Form in Emergency Psychiatry (SAFE) Database Project, which contains information on all presentations to emergency psychiatric services at the 2 tertiary hospitals in Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada (N = 7,007). During a 4-year period (2009-2012), 922 individuals presented with suicide attempts. Logistic regressions were used to examine whether a person's reaction to attempt survival and the method of attempt predicted repeat suicide attempt within 6 months. RESULTS: Of the 922 participants, 82 (8.8%) presented with another suicide attempt within 6 months. Ambivalence about attempt survival (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.84; 95% CI, 1.45-5.54; P < .01) and wishing to be dead (adjusted OR = 2.68; 95% CI, 1.17-6.17; P < .05) predicted future attempts even when adjusted for age, sex, depression, substance abuse, and method of the initial attempt. Method of the index attempt did not predict future suicide attempts in adjusted models (adjusted OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.35-1.25; P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of the patient's reaction to survival, regardless of method of attempt, is important to identify risk of repeat attempts.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".