Young Adult Self-Harm:The Role of Victimisation and Polygenic Risk in a Population-Based Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Victimisation has been associated with self-harm (with or without suicidal intent), but little is known about this association during young adulthood – a distinct developmental period. Further, not all individuals who experience victimisation will later engage in self-harm, suggesting the influence of other factors. The present study examined whether perceived victimisation is associated with self-harm during young adulthood while adjusting for confounders such as peer victimisation and mental health difficulties in adolescence. Additionally, we investigated whether genetic susceptibility for mental health difficulties moderates this association. Methods: Participants were from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (1998-2023); a population-based birth cohort from the Canadian province of Quebec, with victimisation and self-harm measures in young adulthood (sample 1; N=1,235), and who provided blood samples and had been genotyped (sample 2; N=552). At 20 years old, they were asked how often they had experienced forms of victimisations in the past 12 months (e.g., insulted you, put you down in front of others) without specifying the perpetrator. At 20-25 years old, participants reported self-harm. Polygenic scores for depression, ADHD and suicide attempt were calculated. Results: Overall, 17.2% (sample 1) participants reported self-harm at age 20-25 years. Victimisation was associated with self-harm (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.45, 1.89, for each standard deviation increase in victimisation), even after adjusting for confounders, e.g., victimisation and mental health in adolescence (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.26, 1.86). In sample 2, polygenic scores for depression and suicide attempt (not ADHD) were associated with self-harm as well as victimisation in young adulthood, and none moderated the association between victimisation and self-harm. Conclusion: Regardless of genetic susceptibility indexed by polygenic scores, young adult exposed to victimisation are at higher risk of self-harm. Continuing efforts to prevent victimisation beyond childhood/adolescence and into young adulthood may contribute to reducing self-harm risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".