[Suicidal ideation in schizophrenia: relationship with positive and negative symptoms, depression and insight].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate suicidal ideation among schizophrenic patients and compare sociodemographic and clinical properties. METHOD: Sixty patients schizophrenic according to DSM-IV criteria were included in the study. Half the patients were in the acute phase and were inpatients, while the other half were in the stable phase and were outpatients. A semistructured sociodemographic form, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and Schedule for Assessing the Three Components of Insight were used. RESULTS: Suicidal ideations were found in 12 (20%) patients. The proportion having relationship problems, having attempted suicide in the past, and in the acute phase was higher in the group with suicidal ideations than in the group without suicidal ideations. The mean number of suicide attempts was also higher in the group with suicide ideations. The depression score measured by CDSS was higher in the group with suicidal ideations, while there were no relationships between the scores of positive and negative symptoms, and the degree of insight and suicidal thoughts. CONCLUSION: The high rate of suicidal ideation in our sample suggests that, when planning treatment and follow-up for these patients, the risk of suicide has to be determined and protective measures have to be taken. It suggests that determining depression routinely with scales that can be used easily, like CDSS, can be useful for these patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".