MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102079638 · doi:10.1177/1077558720974144

The Affordable Care Act Young Adult Mandate and Suicidal Behavior

2020· article· en· W3102079638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren M. O’Reilly, Blake Froberg, Cong Gian, Brian M. D’Onofrio, Kosali Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care Research and Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsMandateMedicineSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthQuarter (Canadian coin)Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemSuicide ratesPoison controlYoung adultInjury preventionDisease controlDemographyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryGerontologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aimed to determine the association between the Affordable Care Act young adult mandate and suicidal behavior. From 2007 to 2013, we used the Nationwide/National Inpatient Sample and National Poison Data System to examine suicide attempt, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine suicide. We aggregated each outcome by quarter/year and conducted a difference-in-differences linear regression to compare young adults aged 19 to 25 years with those 27 to 29 years before and after implementation. There were not statistically significant associations between the mandate and suicide attempt inpatient hospitalizations (unstandardized beta coefficient [ b] = −0.72, p = .12, standard error [ SE] = 0.42) and percentage of poisoning cases due to suspected suicidal intent ( b = 0.23, p = .19, SE = 0.16). There was a statistically significant association when examining suicide prevalence ( b = −0.03, p = .01, SE = 0.001). The results suggest that health insurance may buffer against but is unlikely to reverse the increasing suicide rate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Care Research and ReviewSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207