A case–control study on predicting population risk of suicide using health administrative data: a research protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Suicide has a complex aetiology and is a result of the interaction among the risk and protective factors at the individual, healthcare system and population levels. Therefore, policy and decision makers and mental health service planners can play an important role in suicide prevention. Although a number of suicide risk predictive tools have been developed, these tools were designed to be used by clinicians for assessing individual risk of suicide. There have been no risk predictive models to be used by policy and decision makers for predicting population risk of suicide at the national, provincial and regional levels. This paper aimed to describe the rationale and methodology for developing risk predictive models for population risk of suicide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A case-control study design will be used to develop sex-specific risk predictive models for population risk of suicide, using statistical regression and machine learning techniques. Routinely collected health administrative data in Quebec, Canada, and community-level social deprivation and marginalisation data will be used. The developed models will be transformed into the models that can be readily used by policy and decision makers. Two rounds of qualitative interviews with end-users and other stakeholders were proposed to understand their views about the developed models and potential systematic, social and ethical issues for implementation; the first round of qualitative interviews has been completed. We included 9440 suicide cases (7234 males and 2206 females) and 661 780 controls for model development. Three hundred and forty-seven variables at individual, healthcare system and community levels have been identified and will be included in least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression for feature selection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Health Research Ethnics Committee of Dalhousie University, Canada. This study takes an integrated knowledge translation approach, involving knowledge users from the beginning of the process.
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 | 0.081 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".