Childhood adversities and risk for suicidal ideation and attempts: a longitudinal population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developmental adversities may be risk factors for adult suicidal behavior, but this relationship has rarely been studied prospectively. The present study examined the association between childhood adversities and new onset suicidal ideation and attempts in an adult population-based sample. METHOD: The study used a large community mental health survey (the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study; n=7076, age range 18-64 years). Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between childhood adversities and new onset of suicidal ideation and attempts over 3 years of longitudinal follow-up. RESULTS: During the study period 85 new cases of suicidal ideation and 39 new onset suicide attempts were observed. The incidence rate for new suicide ideation was 0.67% per year and the incidence rate for new suicide attempts was 0.28% per year. Childhood neglect, psychological abuse and physical abuse were strongly associated with new onset suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. Odds ratios (ORs) ranged from 2.80 to 4.66 for new onset suicidal ideation and from 3.60 to 5.43 for new onset suicide attempts. The total number of adversities reported had a strong graded relationship to new onset suicidal ideation and attempts. These associations remained significant after controlling for the effects of mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood abuse and multiple adversities are strongly associated with future suicidal behavior and the mental disorders assessed in the present study do not fully account for this effect. A comprehensive understanding of suicidal behavior must take childhood adversities into account.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".