MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383561840 · doi:10.2196/47798

Assessing Vulnerability to Surges in Suicide-Related Tweets Using Japan Census Data: Case-Only Study

2023· article· en· W4383561840 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toshiharu Mitsuhashi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsSocial mediaVulnerability (computing)Suicide preventionPoison controlLogistic regressionOddsInjury preventionMedicineOccupational safety and healthSocial vulnerabilityDemographyPsychologyMedical emergencyComputer securityPsychiatryPsychological interventionPolitical scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As the use of social media becomes more widespread, its impact on health cannot be ignored. However, limited research has been conducted on the relationship between social media and suicide. Little is known about individuals' vulnerable to suicide, especially when social media suicide information is extremely prevalent. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the characteristics underlying individuals' vulnerability to suicide brought about by an increase in suicide-related tweets, thereby contributing to public health. METHODS: A case-only design was used to investigate vulnerability to suicide using individual data of people who died by suicide and tweet data from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014. Mortality data were obtained from Japanese government statistics, and tweet data were provided by a commercial service. Tweet data identified the days when suicide-related tweets surged, and the date-keyed merging was performed by considering 3 and 7 lag days. For the merged data set for analysis, the logistic regression model was fitted with one of the personal characteristics of interest as a dependent variable and the dichotomous exposure variable. This analysis was performed to estimate the interaction between the surges in suicide-related tweets and personal characteristics of the suicide victims as case-only odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. For the sensitivity analysis, unexpected deaths other than suicide were considered. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 159,490 suicides and 115,072 unexpected deaths, and the number of suicide-related tweets was 2,804,999. Following the 3-day lag of a highly tweeted day, there were significant interactions for those who were aged 40 years or younger (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.15), male (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07-1.18), divorced (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 1.19), unemployed (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.22), and living in urban areas (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17 1.35). By contrast, widowed individuals had significantly lower interactions (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). Except for unemployment, significant relationships were also observed for the 7-day lag. For the sensitivity analysis, no significant interactions were observed for other unexpected deaths in the 3-day lag, and only the widowed had a significantly larger interaction than those who were married (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15) in the 7-day lag. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the interactions of personal characteristics associated with susceptibility to suicide-related tweets. In addition, a few significant relationships were observed in the sensitivity analysis, suggesting that such an interaction is specific to suicide deaths. In other words, individuals with these characteristics, such as being young, male, unemployed, and divorced, may be vulnerable to surges in suicide-related tweets. Thus, minimizing public health strain by identifying people who are vulnerable and susceptible to a surge in suicide-related information on the internet is necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.489
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207