Neurocognitive markers of suicide vulnerability in the elderly: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: a comprehensive literature review suggests that suicidal behaviour results from a complex interplay between stressful events and vulnerability factors including cognitive deficits. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify the neurocognitive markers associated with suicide vulnerability in elderly people. METHOD: a systematic English Medline literature search of cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies published between January 1960 and December 2012 was performed, combining the MeSH terms "Suicide", "Neuropsychology", "Neuropsychological Tests", "Executive Function", "Magnetic Resonance Imaging", "Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging", "Positron-Emission Tomography", "Prefrontal Cortex", "Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon", and "Diffusion Tensor Imaging". The abstract selection was based on the Strobe checklist for observational studies. RESULTS: of the 446 original articles, 10 neuropsychological and 4 brain imaging studies were selected. The number of suicidal subjects ranged from 10 to 29 (mean age=66.8 to 79.1 years old, 0-85% women). Executive functions, in particular decision-making and cognitive inhibition, were more impaired in the depressed elderly with a history of suicide attempts compared to those without such a history. fMRI data, which need to be confirmed in further details, showed abnormalities of fronto-limbic circuits which are involved in suicide vulnerability in the elderly independently of any associated psychopathological conditions including depression. CONCLUSION: this literature review confirms the existence of neurocognitive markers of suicide vulnerability in elderly people. A neuropsychological assessment could thus help to identify the suicide vulnerability of a depressed elderly person, a first step for both pharmacological and psychotherapeutic cares.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".