Identification of Risk Factors for Suicide and Insights for Developing Suicide Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide is a termite that engulfs close to seven hundred thousand people worldwide each year. Existing work on risk factors that predict suicide lacks statistical associations, does not consider most countries, and has a wide range of risk factor domains. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to enhance our current understanding of suicidality by identifying risk factors that are most strongly associated with suicide and their impact on developing technological interventions for suicide prevention. A search strategy was carried out on four databases: (1) PsycINFO, (2) IEEE Xplore, (3) the ACM Digital Library, and (4) PubMed, and twenty-five studies were included based on the inclusion criteria. Factors statistically associated with suicide are any diagnosed mental disorder, adverse life events, past suicide attempts, low education level, loneliness or high levels of isolation, bipolar disorder, depression, multiple chronic health conditions, family history of suicide, sexual trauma, and being female. Domain-wise, comorbid disorders, and behavior-related risk factors are most strongly associated with suicide. We present a new hierarchical model of risk factors for suicide that advances our understanding of suicide and its causes. Finally, we present open research directions and considerations for developing suicide prevention technologies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".