MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072304688 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e31829829ab

The Association Between Adult Attachment Style, Mental Disorders, and Suicidality

2013· article· en· W2072304688 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Palitsky, Natalie Mota, Tracie O. Afifi, A. Craig Downs, Jitender Sareen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMach-Gaensslen Foundation of CanadaManitoba Health Research Council
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)PsychologyStyle (visual arts)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attachment theory categorically assesses how a person perceives and experiences interpersonal relationships. Attachment style is linked to numerous physical and psychological phenomena; however, there is a paucity of research examining its relationship to suicide ideation and attempt in adults. Our study addresses this and investigates the relationship of adult attachment style and mental disorders in a nationally representative sample. Using data from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (N = 5692, aged >18 years), multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine these relationships. After adjusting for confounding variables, insecure attachment styles were associated with greater reporting of suicidal ideation, attempt, and all mental disorder categories analyzed (adjusted odds ratio range, 1.13-1.81). Secure attachment styles were associated with a decreased likelihood of reporting suicidal ideation, attempt, and any anxiety disorder (adjusted odds ratio range, 0.67-0.91). Clinicians should be aware of attachment issues in their patients to ensure better health outcomes and more effective physician-patient relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207