Types of suicide pacts: a comparative analysis using the National Violent Death Reporting System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Suicide pacts are lethal acts of violence involving multiple decedents. No study has ever compared suicide pact types using a large sample, limiting our understanding of this rare but serious phenomenon. The objective of the current study was to describe suicide pacts in the United States and empirically compare suicide pacts wherein all decedents died by self-harm with those that involved assisted suicide. Methods: Using restricted access incident-level data from the National Violent Death Reporting System, we identified 277 suicide pact incidents (225 suicide pacts wherein all decedents died by self-harm and 52 suicide pacts wherein one pact member died by assisted suicide). The two suicide pact types were compared for demographics, pact characteristics, and preceding circumstances. Results: Compared with decedents of suicide pacts involving assisted suicide, decedents of suicide pacts wherein both members died by self-harm had significantly lower odds of being non-white, Hispanic or non-Hispanic (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.18, 0.64), using an active method of suicide (i.e., ICD-10 codes X70-X83) (OR = 0.01, 95%CI: <0.01, 0.04), and experiencing interpersonal relationship problems (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.27, 0.87) and a crisis within two weeks of their death (OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.36, 0.97), but greater odds of preceding physical health problems (OR = 3.25, 95%CI: 1.84, 6.04). Discussion: Overall, our findings indicate that suicide pacts wherein all decedents died by self-harm and suicide pacts that involved an assisted suicide appear to have largely distinct profiles. While further research is required, the discrete characteristics of these two types of suicide pacts have important implications for prevention.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".