Characterizing Suicide in Toronto: An Observational Study and Cluster Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether people who have died from suicide in a large epidemiologic sample form clusters based on demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors. METHOD: We conducted a coroner's chart review for 2886 people who died in Toronto, Ontario, from 1998 to 2010, and whose death was ruled as suicide by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. A cluster analysis using known suicide risk factors was performed to determine whether suicide deaths separate into distinct groups. Clusters were compared according to person- and suicide-specific factors. RESULTS: Five clusters emerged. Cluster 1 had the highest proportion of females and nonviolent methods, and all had depression and a past suicide attempt. Cluster 2 had the highest proportion of people with a recent stressor and violent suicide methods, and all were married. Cluster 3 had mostly males between the ages of 20 and 64, and all had either experienced recent stressors, suffered from mental illness, or had a history of substance abuse. Cluster 4 had the youngest people and the highest proportion of deaths by jumping from height, few were married, and nearly one-half had bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Cluster 5 had all unmarried people with no prior suicide attempts, and were the least likely to have an identified mental illness and most likely to leave a suicide note. CONCLUSIONS: People who die from suicide assort into different patterns of demographic, clinical, and death-specific characteristics. Identifying and studying subgroups of suicides may advance our understanding of the heterogeneous nature of suicide and help to inform development of more targeted suicide prevention strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".