Association between exposure to suicide and suicidality outcomes in youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ecological studies support the popularized hypothesis that suicide may be “contagious”, in that exposure to suicide may influence risk for suicide and related outcomes. However, this association has not been assessed adequately in prospective studies. The purpose of this study was to estimate the association between exposure to suicide and suicidality outcomes in Canadian youth. Methods: The study used baseline information from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) between 1998/99 and 2006/07 with follow-up assessments two years later. Participants included all respondents aged 12-17 in Cycles 3-7 (1998/99-2006/07) with measures on suicide exposures (N=8,766 ages 12-13; N=7,802 ages 14-15; N=5,496 ages 16-17). Results: Exposure to a schoolmate’s suicide was associated with ideation at baseline in ages 12-13 (OR=5.06; 95%CI: 3.04-8.40), 14-15 (OR=2.93; 95%CI: 2.02-4.24), and 16-17 (OR=2.23; 95%CI: 1.43-3.48); it was further associated with attempts in ages 12-13 (OR=4.57; 95%CI: 2.39-8.71), 14-15 (OR=3.99; 95%CI: 2.46-6.45), and 16-17 (OR=3.22; 95%CI: 1.62-6.41). Personally knowing someone who died by suicide was similarly associated with suicidality outcomes for all age groups. Two-year outcomes were assessed for ages 12-15; a schoolmate’s suicide predicted suicide attempts in both 12-13 (OR=3.07; 95%CI: 1.05-8.96) and 14-15 year-olds (OR=2.72; 95%CI: 1.47-5.04). Among those who reported a schoolmate’s suicide, whether the respondent personally knew the decedent did not alter suicidality risk. Interpretation: These results generally support school-wide over current targeted interventions, particularly over strategies that suggest targeting interventions toward those closest to the decedent.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".