MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159672534 · doi:10.1017/s0033291703008146

Patterns of co-morbidity in male suicide completers

2003· article· en· W2159672534 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chihong Kim, Alain Lesage, Monique Séguin, Nadia Chawky, C. Vanier, Olivier Lipp, Gustavo Turecki

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologyMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatrySuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric co-morbidity is thought to be an important problem in suicide, but it has been little investigated. This study aims to investigate patterns of co-morbidity in a group of male suicide completers. METHOD: One hundred and fifteen male suicide completers from the Greater Montreal Area and 82 matched community controls were assessed using proxy-based diagnostic interviews. Patterns of co-morbidity were investigated using latent class analysis. RESULTS: Three subgroups of male suicide completers were identified (L2 = 171.62, df = 2012, P < 0.05). they differed significantly in the amount of co-morbidity (Kruskal-Wallis chi2 = 71.227, df = 2. P < 0.000) and exhibited different diagnostic profiles. Co-morbidity was particularly found in subjects with disorders characterized by impulsive and impulsive-aggressive traits, whereas subjects without those traits had levels of co-morbidity which were not significantly different from those of controls (chi2 = 8.17, df = 4, P = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: Suicide completers can be divided into at least three subgroups according to co-morbidity: a low co-morbidity group, a substance-dependent group and a group exhibiting childhood onset of psychopathology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0170.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations103
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MedicineSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207