Attempted Suicide Among Students and Young Adults in Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a chart review to identify postsecondary students and nonstudents in the same age range who presented to the emergency department following a suicide attempt to (1) compare demographic characteristics and suicide risk factors and (2) determine factors associated with more serious attempts requiring hospitalizations. METHOD: The study was conducted in 1 tertiary trauma hospital and 1 community hospital affiliated with McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, between January 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010. Charts of patients with potential suicide attempts were identified from medical records using ICD-10 codes that indicated traumatic injury, intentional self-harm, poisoning, and psychiatric or perception/cognition disorders and from the emergency department triage file using keywords that indicated suicidality or self-harm at presentation. RESULTS: In multivariable logistic regression models (odds ratio, 95% CI), students were younger (per 5-year increase: 0.22, 0.12-0.41), less likely to be born in Canada (0.17, 0.06-0.44), and more likely to use less violent methods (laceration, poisoning, other, multiple methods) versus more violent methods (collision, jump, fire burns, firearm, hanging) in their attempt. Fewer students had a history of substance abuse (0.12, 0.02-0.94) but were not different from nonstudents on history of other mental disorders. Less students attempted suicide in the winter/spring (January-April) versus fall (September-December) semester (0.32, 0.11-0.91). Students who attempted suicide were more likely to have family/social support. Those who attempted suicide in the previous year were more likely to require hospitalization for their current suicide attempt. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of specific factors associated with suicide attempts in young people can help inform and guide suicide prevention efforts in both academic and community settings. Specific to the findings of this study regarding the method of suicide attempt used, for example, limiting access to dangerous substances or large quantities of medications may help prevent or reduce suicide attempts in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".