MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221117706 · doi:10.1080/22423982.2022.2037257

Suicide attempts among Greenlandic forensic psychiatric patients – prevalence and determinants

2022· article· en· W4221117706 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Jentz, Parnûna Heilmann, Naaja Nathanielsen, Casey Upfold, Inaluk Kleist, Lisbeth Uhrskov Sørensen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersRegion MidtjyllandAarhus UniversitetshospitalAarhus Universitet
KeywordsPsychiatryForensic sciencePoison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicineOccupational safety and healthPsychologyClinical psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This nationwide cross-sectional study of the lifetime prevalence and determinants of suicide attempts includes 90% of Greenlandic forensic psychiatric patients. Retrospective data were collected from electronic patient files, court documents, and forensic psychiatric assessments using a coding form from a similar study. We used unpaired t-tests and chi2 or Fisher’s exact test. The lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts was 36% (n = 32), and no difference in prevalence was found between male and female patients (p = 0.95). Patients having attempted suicide had a higher rate of physical abuse in childhood (p = 0.04), family history of substance misuse (p = 0.007), and criminal convictions among family members (p = 0.03) than patients who had never attempted suicide. Women primarily used self-poisoning in their latest suicide attempts (67%), whereas men more often used sharp objects or a firearm (42%). Over a third of Greenlandic forensic patients have attempted suicide at some point in their life, and patients with traumatic childhood experiences are at higher risk of suicidal behaviour. It is not possible to conclude whether the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among Greenlandic forensic patients is comparable to that of other high-risk groups in other Arctic regions due to methodological differences among the very few other comparable studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207