Mortality over 12 years of follow-up in people admitted to provincial custody in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to define rates and causes of death in custody and after release in people admitted to provincial custody in Ontario, and to compare these data with data for the general population. METHODS: We linked data on adults admitted to provincial custody in Ontario in 2000 with data on deaths between 2000 and 2012. We examined rates and causes of death by age, sex, custodial status and period after release, and compared them with data for the general population, using indirect adjustment for age. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2012, 8.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3%-8.8%) of those incarcerated died in provincial custody or after release. The crude death rate was 7.1 (95% CI 6.9-7.3) per 1000 person-years. The standardized mortality ratio for those incarcerated in 2000 was 4.0 (95% CI 3.9-4.1) overall and 1.9 (95% CI 1.5-2.4) while in provincial custody. The most common causes of death were injury and poisoning (38.2% of all deaths), including overdose (13.6%) and suicide (8.2%), diseases of the circulatory system (15.8%) and neoplasms (14.5%). In the 2 weeks after release, the standardized mortality ratio was 5.7 overall and 56.0 for overdose. Life expectancy was 72.3 years for women and 73.4 for men who experienced incarceration in 2000. INTERPRETATION: Mortality was high for people who experienced incarceration, and life expectancy was 4.2 years less for men and 10.6 years less for women compared with the general population. Efforts should be made to reduce the gap in mortality between people who experience incarceration and those who do not. Time in custody could serve as an opportunity to intervene to decrease risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".