A meta‐analysis of the relationship between parental death in childhood and subsequent psychiatric disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence for an association between parental death in childhood, and the subsequent development of an anxiety, affective or psychotic disorder. METHODS: Electronic databases (Scopus, Medline (for Ovid), EMBASE and PsychINFO) were searched for peer-reviewed, cohort studies in the English language. Meta-analyses were performed for studies reporting hazard ratios, incidence rate ratios and odds ratios. Two studies reported risk ratios, and these were included in an overall pool of odds, risk and incidence rate ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed (removal of one study at a time) for all meta-analyses, and study quality assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were retained, and where required, data were averaged in advance of pooling. Significant results were observed in studies reporting hazard ratios (k = 4, 1.48 [95% CI = 1.32-1.66]), incidence rate ratios (k = 3, 1.37 [95% CI = 1.01-1.85]), but not odds ratios (k = 4, 0.87 [95% CI = 0.72, 1.05]). However, the overall pooled effect (using odds, incidence rate and risk ratios) was statistically significant (k = 9, 1.22 [95% CI = 1.03-1.44]). CONCLUSION: Overall, the evidence suggests that there is a positive association between the death of a parent before age 18, and the subsequent development of an anxiety, affective or psychotic disorder. The lack of a significant pooled effect in studies reporting results as odds ratios is likely an artefact of study design. LIMITATIONS: Data were clustered in four countries making generalizability uncertain. Studies adjusted for a variety of possible confounders, and follow-up after death varied considerably.
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 | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".