Understanding the role of cannabis in patients with suicidal ideation presenting to the emergency department: systematic chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between cannabis use and suicidality has been established, but details on impacts of legalisation, as well as long-term service use, have had limited attention. AIMS: To examine if changes are present in suicide presentations with access to legal cannabis. METHOD: This study employed administrative database and medical record reviews to identify two cohorts of patients presenting with suicidal ideation/attempts and cannabis use to emergency departments, for two periods: 17 October 2018 to 30 April 2019, and 17 October 2020 to 30 April 2021. Demographic and clinical outcome data were obtained, and emergency department healthcare usage for 2 years before and 2 years after index encounter were compared, to further understand emergency department presentations for the same complaint. RESULTS: = 0.027, respectively), with the immediate post-cannabis legalisation period demonstrating greater numbers of subsequent emergency department visits for suicidality. Additional associations were found between personality disorders and repeat emergency department visits related to cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be stability in the patient profile of those presenting to the emergency department with a complaint relating to suicide while reporting cannabis use from the period directly following legalisation in Canada, to a similar time frame 2 years later despite reported increased use of cannabis in the general population over this period. Despite the rising potency and access to legal cannabis, suicide risk remains stable, although concerning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".