MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2242582650

Suicidal ideation in patients with schizophrenia.

2009· article· en· W2242582650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Çiçek Hocaoğlu, Zeynep TEKİN BABUÇ

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Depression (economics)PsychiatryPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleClinical psychologySuicide preventionPsychologyPoison controlSuicide attemptInjury preventionIdeationDiagnosis of schizophreniaMedicinePsychosisMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the factors affecting suicidal ideas in patients with schizophrenia in terms of some socio-demographic and clinical properties. METHOD: The sample of the study consisted of 120 patients with schizophrenia selected from among patients receiving treatment at Trabzon Atakoy Psychiatry Hospital. All patients were evaluated using a Socio-demographic Data Collection Form, Reasons for Living Inventory (RLI), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), Positive and Negative Syndromes Scale (PANSS), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). RESULTS: Of the patients, 31.6% had suicide ideation. Negative symptoms are found to be significantly higher. The group with suicidal ideation had fewer reasons for living than the group without. CONCLUSION: Evaluations of the history of suicide attempts, depression and hopelessness in patients with schizophrenia are thought to be important in the prevention of suicidal behavior in these patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→