Menstruation and Suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research, albeit limited, has reported mixed findings on the impact of menstruation cycle on suicidal behavior. The contribution of menstruation to completed suicide is also controversial; the studies are, in fact, very limited and are not carefully designed. AIMS: To examine whether the menstruation cycle impacts on suicide. METHODS: In order to explore this relationship, 56 autopsies on completed suicides in females were performed and matched to a control group of 44 females who had died from other causes, at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi. Histopathological examination, a method of collecting tissue from the uterus through biopsy, was used to determine the stage of the menstrual cycle. RESULTS: The results show that 25% of women who had died by suicide were menstruating at the time, compared to 4.5% of the control group; this is statistically (chi2) significant at the p < .002 level. CONCLUSIONS: Menstruation in the women who completed suicide, compared to a control group, appeared to have an association, though more research is warranted. Not only there are serious methodological problems in the study of menstruation and suicide (largely because of problematic tissue storage and examination), but also because of the need to understand the impact within a larger psychological, social, and cultural frame.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".