Correlates and outcomes of different suicidal ideation presentations in the emergency department: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined individuals who were assessed for suicidal ideation in the emergency department in order to determine whether ideation subtypes (active desire for death versus ambivalence about living) differentially predict risk for future suicide attempt. METHOD: Participants were individuals presenting to psychiatric services in the emergency department between January 2009 and December 2013 at two hospitals in Canada. Ambivalent suicidal ideation, active suicidal ideation, and presentations that included both subtypes of ideation were examined as predictors of suicide attempt within 6 months. RESULTS: Of the 8413 individuals presenting with to the emergency room 333 presented with a repeat attempt. Ambivalent suicide ideation, and active ambivalent ideation were predictive of suicide attempts in 6 months [Adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.39; AOR (both) = 4.72, 95% (CI) 3.0.9 to 7.21, respectively). Active ideation; however, was not predictive of a suicide attempt within 6 months. (AOR)=1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.651-3.65. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric presentations to the emergency department often include suicidal ideation. Differentiating between active and passive suicidal ideation does not help in predicting outcomes, and the terminology may be downplaying the severity of presentations that include passive ideation. Mental health professionals should view presentations involving any form of suicidal ideation as a serious risk for future attempts and consider appropriate resources, support and treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".