MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220844296 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003946

Childhood factors associated with suicidal ideation among South African youth: A 28-year longitudinal study of the Birth to Twenty Plus cohort

2022· article· en· W4220844296 on OpenAlexafffund
Massimiliano Orri, Marilyn N. Ahun, Sara Naicker, Sahba Besharati, Linda Richter

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchSouth African Medical Research CouncilWellcome TrustBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsSuicidal ideationBirth orderSocioeconomic statusDemographyMedicinePoison controlCohort studySuicide preventionCohortPsychologyPsychiatryPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although early life factors are associated with increased suicide risk in youth, there is a dearth of research on these associations for individuals growing up in disadvantaged socioeconomic contexts, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We documented the association between individual, familial, and environmental factors in childhood with suicidal ideation among South African youth. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used data from 2,020 participants in the Birth to Twenty Plus (Bt20+) study, a South African cohort following children born in Soweto, Johannesburg from birth (1990) to age 28 years (2018). Suicidal ideation was self-reported at ages 14, 17, 22, and 28 years, and the primary outcome of interest was suicidal ideation reported at any age. We assessed individual, familial, and socioeconomic characteristics at childbirth and during infancy, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) between ages 5 and 13 years, and externalizing and internalizing problems between 5 and 10 years. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) of suicidal ideation for individuals exposed to selected childhood factors using logistic regression. Lifetime suicidal ideation was reported by 469 (23.2%) participants, with a 1.7:1 female/male ratio. Suicidal ideation rates peaked at age 17 and decreased thereafter. Socioeconomic adversity, low birth weight, higher birth order (i.e., increase in the order of birth in the family: first, second, third, fourth, or later born child), ACEs, and childhood externalizing problems were associated with suicidal ideation, differently patterned among males and females. Socioeconomic adversity (OR 1.13, CI 1.01 to 1.27, P = 0.031) was significantly associated with suicidal ideation among males only, while birth weight (OR 1.20, CI 1.02 to 1.41, P = 0.03), ACEs (OR 1.11, CI 1.01 to 1.21, P = 0.030), and higher birth order (OR 1.15, CI 1.07 to 1.243, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with suicidal ideation among females only. Externalizing problems in childhood were significantly associated with suicidal ideation among both males (OR 1.23, 1.08 to 1.40, P = 0.002) and females (OR 1.16, CI 1.03 to 1.30, P = 0.011). Main limitations of the study are the high attrition rate (62% of the original sample was included in this analysis) and the heterogeneity in the measurements of suicidal ideation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study from South Africa, we observed that early life social and environmental adversities as well as childhood externalizing problems are associated with increased risk of suicidal ideation during adolescence and early adulthood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207