“Impulsive” suicide attempts: What do we really mean?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide attempts are often regarded as impulsive acts. However, there is little consensus regarding the definition or clinical characteristics of an "impulsive" attempt. To clarify this issue, we examined 3 indicators of the impulsivity of an attempt: (a) preparation, (b) time contemplating the attempt, and (c) self-report that impulsivity motivated the attempt. We examined relationships among the indicators and their relationship to trait impulsivity and characteristics of the suicide attempt. Adult participants (N = 205) with a history of suicide attempts were administered validated interviews and questionnaires. In general, the 3 attempt impulsivity indicators correlated only moderately with each other and not at all with trait impulsivity or with important characteristics of the attempt (e.g., lethality, preattempt communication, motivations). However, there were 2 exceptions. First, intent to die was inversely related to the 3 attempt impulsivity indicators (rs ranged from -.17 to .45) such that more impulsive attempts were associated with lower intent. Second, self-report that the attempt was motivated by impulsivity was related to 3 facets of trait impulsivity (rs ranged from .16 to .41). These findings suggest that individuals endorsing trait impulsivity are likely to describe their attempts as motivated by impulsivity, regardless of the presence of preparation or prolonged contemplation. Overall, study results suggest that the common conception of a unidimensional impulsive attempt may be inaccurate and that the emphasis on general impulsivity in prevention guidelines should be tempered. Implications for suicide risk assessment and prevention are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.014 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".