Impulsive-aggressive behaviours and completed suicide across the life cycle: a predisposition for younger age of suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the association between impulsive-aggressive behaviours and suicide exists across different ages. METHOD: Via psychological autopsy, we examined a total of 645 subjects aged 11-87 years who died by suicide. Proxy-based interviews were conducted using the SCID-I & SCID-II or K-SADS interviews and a series of behavioural and personality-trait assessments. Secondarily, 246 living controls were similarly assessed. RESULTS: Higher levels of impulsivity, lifetime history of aggression, and novelty seeking were associated with younger age of death by suicide, while increasing levels of harm avoidance were associated with increasing age of suicide. This effect was observed after accounting for age-related psychopathology (current and lifetime depressive disorders, lifetime anxiety disorders, current and lifetime substance abuse disorders, psychotic disorders and cluster B personality disorders). Age effects were not due to the characteristics of informants, and such effects were not observed among living controls. When directly controlling for major psychopathology, the interaction between age, levels of impulsivity, aggression and novelty seeking predicted suicide status while controlling for the independent contributions of age and these traits. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of impulsive-aggressive traits play a greater role in suicide occurring among younger individuals, with decreasing importance with increasing age.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".