Personality traits as correlates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide completions: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Involvement of personality traits in susceptibility to suicidality has been the subject of research since the 1950s. Because of the diversity of conceptual and methodological approaches, the extent of their independent contribution has been difficult to establish. Here, we review conceptual background and empirical evidence investigating roles of traits in suicidal behaviors. METHOD: We selected original studies published in English in MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases, focusing on suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, or suicide completions, and using standardized personality measures. RESULTS: Most studies focused on investigating risk for suicide attempts. Hopelessness, neuroticism, and extroversion hold the most promise in relation to risk screening across all three suicidal behaviors. More research is needed regarding aggression, impulsivity, anger, irritability, hostility, and anxiety. CONCLUSION: Selected personality traits may be useful markers of suicide risk. Future research needs to establish their contributions in relation to environmental and genetic variation in different gender, age, and ethnocultural groups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".