Is the reported increase in young female hospital-treated intentional self-harm real or artefactual?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has reported an increased rate of hospital-treated intentional self-harm in young females (2000-2012) in Australia. These reported increases arise from institutional data that are acknowledged to underestimate the true rate, although the degree of underestimation is not known. OBJECTIVE: To consider whether the reported increase in young females' hospital-treated intentional self-harm is real or artefactual and specify the degree of institutional underestimation. METHODS: Averages for age- and gender-standardised event rates for hospital-treated intentional self-harm (national: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; state: New South Wales Ministry of Health) were compared with sentinel hospital event rates for intentional self-poisoning (Hunter Area Toxicology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle) in young people (15-24 years) for the period 2000-2012. A time series analysis of the event rates for the sentinel hospital was conducted. RESULTS: The sentinel hospital event rates for young females of 444 per 100,000 were higher than the state (378 per 100,000) and national (331 per 100,000) rates. There was little difference in young male event rates - sentinel unit: 166; state: 166 and national: 153 per 100,000. The sentinel hospital rates showed no change over time for either gender. CONCLUSION: There was no indication from the sentinel unit data of any increase in rates of intentional self-poisoning for young females. The sentinel and state rates were higher than the national rates, demonstrating the possible magnitude of underestimation of the national data. The reported increases in national rates of hospital-treated self-harm among young females might be due to artefactual factors, such as changes in clinical practice (greater proportion admitted), improved administrative coding of suicidal behaviours or possibly increased hospital presentations of community self-injury cases, but not intentional self-poisoning. A national system of sentinel units is needed for the accurate and timely monitoring of all hospital-treated self-harm.
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 | 0.048 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".