Serum lipid levels and suicidality: a meta-analysis of 65 epidemiological studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between serum lipid levels and suicidality, as evidence from previous studies has been inconsistent. METHODS: We identified relevant studies by searching Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1980 to Dec. 5, 2014). Studies assessing the association between serum total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and/or triglycerides (TG) levels and suicidality were included. We used a random-effects model to take into account heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: We included 65 studies with a total of 510 392 participants in our analysis. Compared with the nonsuicidal patients, suicidal patients had significantly lower serum TC (weighted mean difference [WMD] -22.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] -27.95 to -16.75), LDL-C (WMD -19.56, 95% CI -26.13 to -12.99) and TG (WMD -23.40, 95% CI -32.38 to -14.42) levels, while compared with the healthy controls, suicidal patients had significantly lower TC (WMD -24.75, 95% CI -27.71 to -21.78), HDL-C (WMD -1.75, 95% CI -3.01 to -0.48) and LDL-C (WMD -3.85, 95% CI -7.45 to -0.26) levels. Furthermore, compared with the highest serum TC level category, a lower serum TC level was associated with a 112% (95% CI 40%-220%) higher risk of suicidality, including a 123% (95% CI 24%-302%) higher risk of suicide attempt and an 85% (95 CI 7%-221%) higher risk of suicide completion. The cut-off values for low and high serum TC level were in compliance with the categories reported in the original studies. LIMITATIONS: A major limitation of our study is the potential heterogeneity in most of the analyses. In addition, the suicidal behaviour was examined using different scales or methods across studies, which may further explain heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: We identified an inverse association between serum lipid levels and suicidality. More mechanistic studies are needed to further explain this association.
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 | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".