Impulsivity and Hopelessness as Predictors of Suicide-Related Ideation among Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research has demonstrated that impulsivity is strongly associated with suicide-related ideation and behaviour among young adults. However, to date, the potential importance of impulsivity as a predictor of suicide-related ideation in later life has yet to be determined. Our study examined impulsivity, hopelessness, depressive symptomatology, and sociodemographic factors vis-à-vis suicide-related ideation among older adults at risk of self-harm. METHOD: A sample (n = 117) of older adults was recruited from multiple sources for this study over a 1-year period. Suicide-related ideation was measured with the Geriatric Suicide Ideation Scale, a multidimensional measure of suicide-related ideation developed for use with older adults. RESULTS: Canonical correlation identified 2 pairings of linear composites in which impulsivity emerged along both as significantly associated with facets of suicide-related ideation. Of note, the greater proportion of variance in impulsivity was subsumed along the second set of vectors with somatic depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the impulse to self-harm may be even more pronounced among older adults less likely to present as typically depressed. It is further suggested that impulsivity is more broadly associated with suicide-related ideation than hopelessness, and that screening for impulsivity as well as hopelessness may increase clinicians' ability to identify older adults at greatest risk of self-harm.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".