Prevalence of suicidal ideation, attempts and associated risk factors in oral cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral cancer, including malignancies of the lip, and oral cavity, is associated with significant psychological distress, increasing the risk of suicidal ideation (SI) and suicide attempts (SA). Despite its severe morbidity and mortality, the prevalence of SI and SA and their associated risk factors remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the prevalence of SI and SA among oral cancer patients and identify key psychosocial risk factors. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, with an initial search on August 13, 2024, and an update on December 19, 2024. Observational studies reporting SI and SA prevalence in oral cancer patients were included. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.4. Pooled prevalence rates were calculated using a random-effects model, heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, sensitivity analysis was performed using a leave-one-out approach, and publication bias was evaluated using Doi plots and LFK index values. RESULTS: From 5,145 articles, 13 studies from Taiwan, South Korea, Canada, Germany, and the United States, involving 899,765 participants, were included. The pooled prevalence of SI was 13.08% (95% CI, 7.41-22.03) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 65%), while SA prevalence was 0.32% (95% CI, 0.1-0.7) with high heterogeneity (I² = 99%). Key risk factors included depression (OR = 42.83), dysphoria (OR = 8.06), prior cancer history (OR = 4.53), rural residence, and male gender. CONCLUSION: This review revealed a substantial psychological impact faced by oral cancer patients, with notable prevalence rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. Identifying major risk factors, such as depression and dysphoria, underscores the need for integrating tailored mental health interventions into routine oncological care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".