MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320711697 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004171

Suicidal ideation following self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms or serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in France: A propensity score weighted analysis from a cohort study

2023· article· en· W4320711697 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Davisse‐Paturet, Massimiliano Orri, Stéphane Legleye, Aline-Marie Florence, Jean‐Baptiste Hazo, Josiane Warszawski, Bruno Falissard, Marie‐Claude Geoffroy, Maria Melchior, Alexandra Rouquette

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDirection de la Recherche, des Études, de l’Évaluation et des StatistiquesMinistère de la SantéInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsMedicineSuicidal ideationCohort studyCohortInternal medicineSerologyPediatricsPoison controlInjury preventionImmunologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A higher risk of suicidal ideation associated with self-report of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like symptoms or COVID-19 infection has been observed in cross-sectional studies, but evidence from longitudinal studies remains limited. The aims of this study were 2-fold: (1) to explore if self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020 were associated with suicidal ideation in 2021; (2) to explore if the association also existed when using a biological marker of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in 2020. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 52,050 participants from the French EpiCov cohort were included (median follow-up time = 13.7 months). In terms of demographics, 53.84% were women, 60.92% were over 45 years old, 82.01% were born in mainland France from parents born in mainland France, and 59.38% completed high school. COVID-19-like symptoms were defined as participant report of a sudden loss of taste/smell or fever alongside cough, shortness of breath, or chest oppression, between February and November 2020. Symptoms were self-reported at baseline in May 2020 and at the first follow-up in Autumn 2020. Serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 was derived from Spike protein ELISA test screening in dried-blood-spot samples. Samples were collected from October 2020 to March 2021, with 94.4% collected in 2020. Suicidal ideation since December 2020 was self-reported at the second follow-up in Summer 2021. Associations of self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms and serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 with suicidal ideation in 2021 were ascertained using modified Poisson regression models, weighted by inverse probability weights computed from propensity scores. Among the 52,050 participants, 1.68% [1.54% to 1.82%] reported suicidal ideation in 2021, 9.57% [9.24% to 9.90%] had a serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020, and 13.23% [12.86% to 13.61%] reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020. Self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020 were associated with higher risks of later suicidal ideation in 2021 (Relative Riskipw [95% CI] = 1.43 [1.20 to 1.69]), while serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 was not (RRipw = 0.89 [0.70 to 1.13]). Limitations of this study include the use of a single question to assess suicidal ideation, the use of self-reported history of mental health disorders, and limited generalizability due to attrition bias. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported COVID-19-like symptoms in 2020, but not serology-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020, were associated with a higher risk of subsequent suicidal ideation in 2021. The exact role of SARS-CoV-2 infection with respect to suicide risk has yet to be clarified. Including mental health resources in COVID-19-related settings could encourage symptomatic individuals to care for their mental health and limit suicidal ideation to emerge or worsen.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207