Effects of Light Therapy on Suicidal Ideation in Patients With Winter Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent case reports suggest that some patients with seasonal affective disorder (SAD) may become suicidal after initial treatment with light therapy. This retrospective study sought to determine the effects of light therapy on suicidal ideation in patients with SAD. METHOD: The cases of 191 depressed patients with SAD by DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria treated with an open trial of morning light therapy using cool white fluorescent light boxes (2500 lux for 2 hours per day or 10,000 lux for 30 minutes per day) for 2 weeks were retrospectively analyzed. Patients had been rated before and after treatment with the expanded Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-SAD). RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent of patients were rated as clinical responders to light therapy. There was significant improvement in the SIGH-SAD suicide item score, with 45% of patients showing a reduction in score. Only 6 patients (3%) had slight worsening of suicide scores. No patients attempted suicide or discontinued light therapy because of emergent suicidality. CONCLUSION: Light therapy relieves suicidal ideation in patients with SAD consistent with overall clinical improvement. Emergence of suicidal ideas or behaviors is very uncommon with light therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".