Lifetime Risk of Suicidal Behaviors and Communication to a Health Professional About Suicidal Ideation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is presently a lack of information on the role of healthcare in suicidal ideation in adults. AIMS: To assess the frequencies, patterns, and factors associated with the communication of suicidal ideation toward a health professional. METHODS: Participants stem from a French cross-sectional survey of 22,133 randomly selected adults. Lifetime suicidal behaviors and 12-month mental disorder patterns were assessed using the short form of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Participants with suicidal ideation were asked whether they had talked about it and, if they had, to whom. RESULTS: Around 20% of people with suicidal ideation had talked about this distress to a health professional. It was more frequent for people with more severe suicidal behaviors (plan or a prior attempt), among women, those aged 30 or more, those suffering from major depressive episode, panic disorder, or drug use disorder. Above all, it was more frequent among those who had also talked to friends or relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention strategies that encourage suicidal persons to seek help for their distress, whoever that is, may be the more important strategies to develop.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".