MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414180061 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.2353

Assessing suicidality assessments in physician assisted death applications: Do they filter out traditional suicidality?

2025· article· en· W4414180061 on OpenAlexaff
K. Sonu Gaind

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssisted suicideFeelingPresentation (obstetrics)Terminal (telecommunication)Mental illnessFilter (signal processing)Identification (biology)Certainty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Physician Assisted Death (PAD) has been legalized or decriminalized in over a dozen jurisdictions around the world, and many other jurisdictions are considering assisted dying laws. Most jurisdictions only allow PAD in terminal conditions while a minority allow PAD outside end-of-life situations, with a small number allowing PAD for sole mental illness conditions. A key element in assessments of PAD requests is whether those assessments can filter out traditional suicidality, for which suicide prevention is provided, from other motivations for assisted death, for which PAD may be provided. Objectives 1. To recognize the range of factors that may motivate assisted dying requests. 2. To understand the factors that inform assisted dying assessments, specifically how the assessments attempt to identify suicidality. 3. To appreciate the degree of certainty or uncertainty that assisted dying assessments actually identify suicidality in different patient populations. Methods This presentation briefly reviews evidence related to motivations leading to assisted dying requests in different populations, and then focuses on reviewing guidelines PAD assessors use to attempt to identify traditional suicidality, and to distinguish that from other motivations leading to PAD requests. These guidelines are compared to established evidence and factors related to suicide risk and suicide prevention. Results 1. Different factors motivate different populations to seek assisted death, with those making PAD requests in terminal situations frequently seeking PAD in efforts to preserve dignity, and those seeking PAD outside terminal conditions or for sole mental illness citing feeling a burden, or an accumulation of multiple life stressors, as fueling their PAD requests. 2. Most of the factors presented in guidance on distinguishing and separating suicidality from PAD requests equally apply to traditionally suicidal individuals and to those requesting PAD. 3. Evidence shows that the few distinguishing factors used to attempt to separate suicidality from PAD requests, specifically impulsivity and acting on one’s own, do not actually filter out suicidality. Conclusions While a key goal of physician assisted death assessments is to identify and separate traditionally suicidal individuals from those seeking and receiving assisted death, current assessment techniques are unable to filter out suicidal individuals in an unknown number of cases. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207