Hopelessness Predicts Suicide Ideation But Not Attempts: A 10‐Year Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hopelessness is one of the most commonly cited risk factors for suicidal behaviors. However, several retrospective studies suggest that hopelessness, while strongly correlated with suicide ideation, does not distinguish attempters from ideators without attempts. This study is the first to utilize a prospective design to disambiguate the relationship of hopelessness to ideation versus attempts. Participants were 142 depressed patients followed up over 10 years. Hopelessness and suicidality (ideation and attempts) were assessed using validated questionnaires and structured interviews. Both retrospective and prospective analyses revealed that hopelessness was higher among those reporting any suicidality (ideation or attempts) compared with nonsuicidal individuals. However, hopelessness failed to meaningfully distinguish attempters from ideators in both retrospective and prospective analyses. Taken together with results from previous studies, our findings suggest hopelessness is best conceptualized as a risk factor for suicide ideation but not progression from ideation to attempts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".