Examination of real-time fluctuations in suicidal ideation and its risk factors: Results from two ecological momentary assessment studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies examined 2 important but previously unanswered questions about the experience of suicidal ideation: (a) How does suicidal ideation vary over short periods of time?, and (b) To what degree do risk factors for suicidal ideation vary over short periods and are such changes associated with changes in suicidal ideation? Participants in Study 1 were 54 adults who had attempted suicide in the previous year and completed 28 days of ecological momentary assessment (EMA; average of 2.51 assessments per day; 2,891 unique assessments). Participants in Study 2 were 36 adult psychiatric inpatients admitted for suicide risk who completed EMA throughout their time in the hospital (average stay of 10.32 days; average 2.48 assessments per day; 649 unique assessments). These studies revealed 2 key findings: (a) For nearly all participants, suicidal ideation varied dramatically over the course of most days: more than 1-quarter (Study 1 = 29%; Study 2 = 28%) of all ratings of suicidal ideation were a standard deviation above or below the previous response from a few hours earlier and nearly all (Study 1 = 94.1%; Study 2 = 100%) participants had at least 1 instance of intensity of suicidal ideation changing by a standard deviation or more from 1 response to the next. (b) Across both studies, well-known risk factors for suicidal ideation such as hopelessness, burdensomeness, and loneliness also varied considerably over just a few hours and correlated with suicidal ideation, but were limited in predicting short-term change in suicidal ideation. These studies represent the most fine-grained examination of suicidal ideation ever conducted. The results advance the understanding of how suicidal ideation changes over short periods and provide a novel method of improving the short-term prediction of suicidal ideation. (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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".