Suicide and Ambient Temperature: A Multi-Country Multi-City Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous literature suggests that higher ambient temperature may play a role in increasing the risk of suicide. However, no multi-country study has explored the shape of the association and the role of moderate and extreme heat across different locations. OBJECTIVES: We examined the short-term temperature-suicide relationship using daily time-series data collected for 341 locations in 12 countries for periods ranging from 4 to 40 y. METHODS: We conducted a two-stage meta-analysis. First, we performed location-specific time-stratified case-crossover analyses to examine the temperature-suicide association for each location. Then, we used a multivariate meta-regression to combine the location-specific lag-cumulative nonlinear associations across all locations and by country. RESULTS: A total of 1,320,148 suicides were included in this study. Higher ambient temperature was associated with an increased risk of suicide in general, and we observed a nonlinear association (inverted J-shaped curve) with the highest risk at 27°C. The relative risk (RR) for the highest risk was 1.33 (95% CI: 1.30, 1.36) compared with the risk at the first percentile. Country-specific results showed that the nonlinear associations were more obvious in northeast Asia (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). The temperature with the highest risk of suicide ranged from the 87th to 88th percentiles in the northeast Asian countries, whereas this value was the 99th percentile in Western countries (Canada, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the United States) and South Africa, where nearly linear associations were estimated. The country-specific RRs ranged from 1.31 (95% CI: 1.19, 1.44) in the United States to 1.65 (95% CI: 1.40, 1.93) in Taiwan, excluding countries where the results were substantially uncertain. DISCUSSION: Our findings showed that the risk of suicide increased with increasing ambient temperature in many countries, but to varying extents and not necessarily linearly. This temperature-suicide association should be interpreted cautiously, and further evidence of the relationship and modifying factors is needed. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4898.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".