Suicide attempt, suicidal ideation and hopelessness levels in major depressive patients with and without alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: It is known that hopelessness and alexithymia levels are increased in patients with depressive disorder. In the literature, reports are suggesting that high levels of hopelessness in patients with depressive disorder increase suicide attempts and ideations. Here we aimed to investigate whether there are any differences in terms of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and hopelessness levels in major depressive disorder patients with and without alexithymia. Method: In this study, 99 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to structured interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I/CV) and 50 healthy subjects were included. Sociodemographic questionnaire, Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) were administered to patients and controls. Additionally, Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) was administered to patients with suicide attempt. Results: There was no significant difference in terms of sociodemographic data (except for the marital status) between major depressive patients with or without alexithymia and healthy controls. According to a cut off point of 61 for TAS-20, 34.3% (n=34) of the patient group was alexithymic and 65.7% (n=65) was non-alexithymic. Rate of suicide attempt was higher in the alexithymic major depressive patients (67.6%) than the non-alexithymic major depressive patients (29.2%). Mean scores of SSI and BHS were higher in alexithymic patients than non-alexithymic patients. There was a positive correlation between TAS-1 (difficulty identifying feelings), TAS-2 (difficulty expressing feelings) and BHS, SSI scores. Conclusion: In our study, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and hopelessness levels were higher in major depression patients with alexithymia. Higher incidence of suicide attempts in major depressive patients with higher alexithymia levels and higher suicidal ideation and hopelessness levels in this group of patients suggest the possibility of alexithymia being a predictive factor for suicide attempt.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".