A Review of the Prevalence of Psychosis in Sexual Homicide.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a growing body of research on the association between psychosis and homicide and between psychosis and sexual offending, research on psychosis and sexual homicide is limited. The objective of this review was to estimate the prevalence of psychosis in sexual homicide and to explore the extent to which prior research has investigated symptoms of psychosis as a motivating or causal variable leading to incidents of sexual homicide. We hypothesized that psychosis is present in a minority of sexual homicide cases. Articles were identified by searching literature databases (i.e., PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and references of relevant articles. Eight studies were included. The overall prevalence of psychosis among individuals who committed sexual homicide ranged from 0 to 27 percent as measured in a broad array of diverse samples. Given that five of the eight studies reported psychosis rates to be five percent or less, our findings suggest that psychosis occurs in a minority of sexual homicide cases. None of the studies directly examined the causal or motivational properties of psychosis in driving these types of offenses, and this represents an important area of inquiry for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".