Suicidality and epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to evaluate the association between epilepsy and suicidality, including suicidal ideation, attempts and completed suicide. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Online Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov from 1946 to June 21, 2021 and assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We calculated the pooled OR and the crude rate for suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and completed suicide in patients with epilepsy (PWE). Results: We screened 2,786 studies and included 88 articles with 1,178,401 PWE and 6,900,657 participants as controls. Search terms included epilepsy and suicide. The pooled rates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and completed suicide in PWE were 19.73% (95% CI: 17.00-22.62%), 5.96% (95% CI: 4.82-7.20%), and 0.24% (95% CI: 0.11-0.42%), respectively. Compared to the control group, PWE were at a significantly higher risk of total suicidality (pooled OR, 2.60; 95%: 2.13-3.18), including suicidal ideation (pooled OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.21-3.30), suicide attempts (pooled OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 2.08-3.61) and completed suicide (pooled OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.45-3.83). Subgroup analyses showed significant differences in the subgroups of the measurement of suicidality. Conclusion: The rate of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and completed suicide in PWE were about 19.73, 5.96, and 0.24%. And there was an increased risk of suicidality in PWE especially temporal lobe epilepsy and drug-resistant epilepsy. Clinicians need to be aware of this risk in PWE with early identification and prevention at the time of diagnosis.Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021278220.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".