A biopsychosocial evaluation of the risk for suicide in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of suicide is greatly increased in individuals with schizophrenia. Previous research has identified several potential risk factors for suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, although their ability to independently predict suicide is limited. The objective of this review was to systematically analyze and identify the interaction between the proposed risk factors in the literature that may predict suicidal behavior in schizophrenia. Articles that explored suicidal behavior and suicide risk in schizophrenia that were published between 1980 and August of 2015, indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus were systematically reviewed. Many studies proposed a range of biopsychosocial risk factors that may independently lead to suicide in schizophrenia. These risk factors appear to be mainly related to stress, a history of suicidal behavior, and psychotic symptoms. It is clear, however, that many of these factors do not act independently and in fact require the reciprocal interaction of several of them to pose a risk for suicide in schizophrenia. Independently, the power of many risk factors to predict suicide is limited. Future studies should continue to adopt a multidimensional approach by considering the interaction of several factors in assessing the risk for suicide in schizophrenia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".