Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42780271›Full record

ArticleResearch square2026

Geospatial suicide risk prediction in the State of Maryland and the limits of discernible intent.

Christopher Kitchen, Anas Belouali, Ayah Zirikly, Paul S Nestadt, Holly C Wilcox, Hadi Kharrazi

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christopher KitchenJohns Hopkins University.
Anas BeloualiJohns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Ayah ZiriklyJohns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering.
Paul S NestadtJohns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Holly C WilcoxJohns Hopkins University.
Hadi KharraziJohns Hopkins University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The rate of suicide death is known to be unequally distributed by geography and associated with multiple sociocultural and clinical risk factors. It is less clear whether the same patterns exist for deaths where the manner is undetermined, acknowledging that it is not always possible for a medical examiner to know whether death is intentional. Methods: Cumulative counts of suicide and undetermined death were aggregated to the Census tract level of the State of Maryland, between 2012-2020 and used as primary outcomes of interest. We evaluated death rate using two statistical approaches: 1) negative binomial models and 2) SaTScan geospatial clustering of pooled cases. Results: Model effects for suicide reveal a marginal association with older age, and greater area deprivation index (ADI), but an inverse association with proportion of minority race population. Undetermined death was found to be significantly associated with ADI. SaTScan clusters for suicide revealed a small number of large clusters covering rural areas of Maryland, but many small clusters around metropolitan areas for undetermined manner of death. Conclusions: The two techniques identified distinct regions of interest for public health surveillance and intervention planning, and with respect to each manner of death. Suicide deaths were found to be elevated in non-metropolitan areas. Limited access to care and increased social burden are found to be associated with undetermined death. There is more uncertainty around intent for these cases, often due to a lack of diagnoses, treatment or other clinical context.

Indexed as

geospatial clusteringsocial determinantssuicide riskundetermined manner of death

Identifiers

PMID42780271
PMCPMC13596640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.