Pattern and Risk Factors for Intentional Drug Overdose in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attempted suicide by intentional drug overdose is an understudied subject in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country where suicide or attempted suicide is strictly prohibited. Despite the strong religious and constitutional sanctions against suicide, cases of intentional drug overdose occasionally occur. Our study represents the first attempt to better understand and characterize this sensitive topic. METHODS: Using a retrospective chart review of patients aged 12 years and over with a diagnosis of intentional drug overdose between 1997 and 1999, we studied the demographic characteristics, the risk factors, the most commonly used drugs, and the resulting morbidities and mortalities of study subjects. RESULTS: Most of the patients were young (mean age 22 years, SD 4.6, range 15 to 40 years), and most were Saudi nationals (n = 76; 96%). Eighty percent of the patients were women. The occurrence of intentional drug overdose peaked during the month of September (that is, 20% of total cases). Previous suicide attempts, family conflicts, and psychiatric disorders represented significant risk factors. Single-agent overdose occurred in 30% of the patients, and most of the drugs used were prescribed medications (53%). Acetaminophen represented the most common drug (30%). While some patients required prolonged hospital stay or admission to the intensive care unit, no mortalities occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Intentional drug overdose is a relatively uncommon reason for hospital admission in Saudi Arabia. This study identifies certain risk factors relevant to the Saudi community and raises awareness about intentional drug overdose.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".