Association of family dysfunction childhood adversities and lifetime attempts in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to examine the prevalence of family dysfunction childhood adversities (CAs) by sex in a nationally representative sample and to investigate the sex-specific association of CAs with lifetime suicide attempts. METHODS: Data were drawn from the 2005, 2010, and 2017 nationally representative cross-sectional French Health Barometer surveys (n = 47,105) to examine exposure to three types of CAs and their association with lifetime suicide attempts. Logistic regressions were performed to identify associations of every exposure combination with the odds of suicide attempts overall, and stratified by gender. RESULTS: = 132,00, df = 1, p < 0.0001). Overall, 8.7 % of women and 3.7 % of men reported a lifetime suicide attempt. In multivariable models, female sex (AOR = 2.13, 95 %CI = 1.96-2.32) and each form of exposure to CAs was associated with higher odds of reporting a lifetime attempt with exposure to all three types of CAs associated with the highest odds of lifetime attempt (AOR = 5.15, 95 %CI = 4.37-6.07). Parental discord held the strongest association with attempts, compared to illness/death or separation. In stratified analyses, CAs were equally associated with attempts among men and women. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Parental discord was found to be highly prevalent in the general population and strongly associated with suicide attempts. No sex-specific associations were observed in the association of adversity types and number with attempts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".