Gambling disorder and suicide risk: A meta-epidemiology study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to explore the relationship between gambling disorder (GD) and suicide, with a focus on the increased risk of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide mortality in GD patients. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to March 2025 for observational studies examining the association between GD and suicide risk, using relevant MeSH/keywords. Study quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were pooled using random-effects models in STATA 14.0, with results expressed as adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses evaluated influences of study design and geographic region. RESULT: This meta-analysis included 14 high-quality observational studies, and the results of the meta-analysis were unbiased. Fourteen studies demonstrated significant associations between GD and suicide outcomes: suicidal ideation [OR = 1.58], suicide attempt [OR = 2.91], and suicide mortality [OR = 8.52]. Subgroup analysis by study design showed non-significant risk in case-control studies [OR = 1.59], but significant risk in cross-sectional [OR = 3.31] and cohort studies [OR = 4.10]. Geographically, Asian studies showed non-significant association [OR = 1.13], while significant risks were observed in Europe [OR = 4.38], North America [OR = 2.41] and Oceania [OR = 2.16]. CONCLUSION: Research shows that gambling disorders are linked to a higher risk of suicide. This association may vary across populations and contexts.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".