MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140981442 · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.5.1017

Familial Aggregation of Suicidal Behavior: A Family Study of Male Suicide Completers From the General Population

2005· article· en· W2140981442 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline D. Kim, Monique Séguin, Nadia Therrien, Geneviève Riopel, Nadia Chawky, Alain Lesage, Gustavo Turecki

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationPsychopathologyPsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlPersonality disordersSuicide attemptPopulationBorderline personality disorderInjury preventionPersonalityMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study compared suicidality in families of adult male suicide completers and community comparison subjects. METHOD: Two hundred forty-seven relatives of 25 male suicide completers and 171 relatives of 25 matched comparison subjects were assessed for recurrent risk of suicidal and related behaviors. Analyses were performed on a subgroup of relatives of suicide completers with cluster B personality disorders. RESULTS: Relatives of suicide completers were over 10 times more likely than relatives of comparison subjects to attempt or complete suicide after the authors controlled for psychopathology. Relatives of suicide completers were not more likely to exhibit suicidal ideation but had more severe suicidal ideation than relatives of comparison subjects. These findings were stronger for the suicide completers diagnosed with cluster B personality disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide has a familial component independent of psychopathology that may be mediated by a combination of factors, including more severe suicidal ideation and aggressive behavior.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations182
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207