Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and youth suicide: making sense from a confusing story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an update on use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and youth suicide, and describes an informed examination of the social and professional dimensions of this issue. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies, using various methodologies to analyze experimental and observational data, suggest that concerns about the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on suicide and suicide-related phenomena may have been overstated. Also, contrary to much public and medical opinion, treatment of depression with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors does not increase but rather may decrease youth suicide fatalities. A recent reanalysis by the US Food and Drug Administration of existing data from clinical trials across the lifespan suggest an age-dependent effect on nonfatal suicide attempts and suicidal ideation, in which risk appears to be increased in youth and reduced from mid-adulthood and onward. SUMMARY: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are a modestly effective and generally safe treatment for postpubertal major depressive disorder, but their use requires collaborative decision making and a predetermined, shared monitoring plan.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".