Do selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors cause suicide?: Let's keep it in perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors cause suicide? Risk of suicide should be assessed for whole class of antidepressantsEditor-Gunnell et al's report on suicide risk with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) raises several issues. 1 Firstly, clinicians have observed that the first weeks of treatment of severe depression with an antidepressant are accompanied by a higher risk of suicide because of a drug induced motor disinhibition that is not yet accompanied by mood improvement. 2 Secondly, the authors' finding of a trend towards a protective effect of SSRIs against suicidal thoughts (odds ratio 0.77) compared with a trend towards an increased risk of self harm (odds ratio 1.57) is paradoxical.More surprising is the heterogeneity of results among SSRIs.Why would sertraline show a protective effect for suicidal thoughts and simultaneously increase the risk of self harm?The risk difference between citalopram and its active S-enantiomere, escitalopram, is also strange.No strong biological rationale can explain such heterogeneity among drugs with the same mechanism of action.Thirdly, the authors mention that the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency found little evidence for a risk difference between SSRIs and the other antidepressants.The two accompanying papers show that the suicidal risk seems similar for serotoninergic and tricyclic antidepressants. 3 4The risk of suicide must be assessed for the whole class of antidepressants.The next stage would be to measure the risk of suicide according to the time since starting an antidepressant.Initially, the risks are higher than the benefits.To confirm old clinical observations by evidence based methods would be interesting and useful.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".