Concordance of Self- and Proxy-Reported Suicide Ideation in Depressed Adults 50 Years of Age or Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether social supports (proxies) can detect the presence of suicide ideation in a clinical sample of depressed adults 50 years of age or older, and to additionally assess the potential impact of depression symptom severity on patient-proxy concordance in reports of patient suicide ideation. METHOD: Cross-sectional data were collected regarding Axis I diagnoses, severity of depressive symptoms, and suicide ideation in a clinical sample of 109 patients 50 years of age and older. Patients were administered study measures by trained interviewers. Patients' social supports completed proxy measures of these same variables. We assessed concordance in self- and proxy-reported suicide ideation, employing global suicide ideation items derived from depression scales and more fine-grained suicide ideation items drawn from multi-item suicide ideation measures. We investigated patient-proxy concordance regarding the presence of patient suicide ideation. RESULTS: Patients who endorsed suicide ideation and were concordantly seen by their social supports to be suicidal reported significantly greater depressive symptom severity than patients concordantly reported to be nonsuicidal. Patients' social supports reported significantly less depressive symptom severity in patients who endorsed suicide ideation yet who did not appear to be suicidal to them. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that family and friends can broadly ascertain the presence of suicide ideation in depressed middle-aged and older adults, yet in doing so may largely be responding to their broad perceptions of depressive symptom severity in patients and not specifically to the presence of suicidal thoughts.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".