Suicide Deaths in People With Bipolar Disorder: Characteristics and Treatments at Time of Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare suicide deaths in those with or without bipolar disorder (BD), taking into particular consideration the degree to which treatment at the time of death, according to toxicology data, reflects evidence-based pharmacotherapy. METHODS: Coroner data were coded for all verified suicide deaths in the City of Toronto, Canada (1998-2020). Suicide decedents with BD (n = 340) were compared to the non-BD group (n = 4948) on demographic, clinical, and suicide-related variables. In a subsample of decedents, the presence and/or lethality of medications or substances at the time of death was identified from toxicology data and compared between groups and across time (two 11.5 year epochs). Data were analyzed using univariate analyses. RESULTS: Several noteworthy demographic, clinical, and suicide-specific differences between BD and non-BD suicide groups emerged. Antidepressants (48.9%) and benzodiazepines (46.7%) were the most commonly present medications among people with BD, at a proportion similar to the non-BD group. There was a significant decrease in the presence of mood stabilizers across time (33.3% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.006), and lithium was present in only 5.8% of decedents with BD. Opioids (22.1%) and antipsychotics (22.1%) were the most common substances detected in lethal amounts in the BD group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that a substantial proportion of people with BD who die by suicide are not receiving first-line treatments at the time of death. While causality cannot be established, further exploration of pharmacotherapy at the time of death would ideally link to living controls to address issues of risk and lethality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".