Psychological Resilience to Suicide Ideation Among Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated associations between suicide ideation and a set of potential risk and resiliency factors in a heterogeneous sample of 107 older adults (mean age = 81.5 years, SD = 7.7 years; range, 67 to 98 years; 76% female) recruited in community, residential, and healthcare settings. Participants completed the Geriatric Suicide Ideation Scale (GSIS; Heisel & Flett, 2006 Heisel, M.J. and Flett, G.L. 2006. The development and initial validation of the Geriatric Suicide Ideation Scale. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14: 742–751. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and measures of depression, perceived physical health problems, domains of psychological well-being, perceived meaning in life, and indices of social network and of religious affiliation and observance. The main findings indicated that suicide ideation was associated positively with depression and with number of self-reported physical health problems and negatively with domains of psychological well-being including positive relations with others and self-acceptance, and with perceived meaning in life. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that the resiliency factors in general, and perceived meaning in life in particular, explained significant added variance in suicide ideation over and above measures of mental and physical health problems. These findings suggest potential value in attending to both suicide risk and resiliency when assessing late-life suicide ideation and when developing interventions for older adults at risk for suicide.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".