Re-Examination of Classic Risk Factors for Suicidal Behavior in the Psychiatric Population
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For decades we have understood the risk factors for suicide in the general population but have fallen short in understanding what distinguishes the risk for suicide among patients with serious psychiatric conditions. AIMS: This prompted us to investigate risk factors for suicidal behavior among psychiatric inpatients. METHOD: We reviewed all psychiatric hospital admissions (2008-2011) to a centralized psychiatric hospital in Ontario, Canada. Using multivariable logistic regression we evaluated the association between potential risk factors and lifetime history of suicidal behavior, and constructed a model and clinical risk score to predict a history of this behavior. RESULTS: The final risk prediction model for suicidal behavior among psychiatric patients (n = 2,597) included age (in three categories: 60-69 [OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.73-0.76], 70-79 [OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.44-0.46], 80+ [OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.30-.31]), substance use disorder (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.27-1.32), mood disorder (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.47-1.52), personality disorder (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 2.25-2.36), psychiatric disorders due to general medical condition (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.50-0.55), and schizophrenia (OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.41-0.43). The risk score constructed from the risk prediction model ranges from -9 (lowest risk, 0% predicted probability of suicidal behavior) to +5 (highest risk, 97% predicted probability). CONCLUSION: Risk estimation may help guide intensive screening and treatment efforts of psychiatric patients with high risk of suicidal 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it