MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence Supporting an Independent Association between Childhood Physical Abuse and Lifetime Suicidal Ideation

2012· article· en· W2106974565 on OpenAlexaffabout
Esme Fuller‐Thomson, Tobi Michelle Baker, Sarah Brennenstuhl

Bibliographic record

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationPsychosocialPhysical abusePsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineChild abuseChildhood abuseConfoundingSexual abusePoison controlSuicide preventionMental healthSocioeconomic statusPsychologyEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A regionally representative Canadian sample was used to investigate the gender-specific relationship between childhood physical abuse and lifetime suicidal ideation. The prevalence of suicidal ideation was about five times higher in abused men and women compared with their nonabused counterparts. After controlling for five clusters of potentially confounding factors (adverse childhood conditions, socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, psychosocial stressors/chronic illnesses, and mental health), childhood physical abuse was significantly associated with suicidal ideation (OR(adjusted) women = 4.48, 95% CI = 3.32-6.04; men = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.08-6.14). These findings suggest childhood physical abuse is independently associated with suicidal ideation and highlight the importance of providing preventative treatment to childhood abuse survivors.

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)0.006
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 score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207