Early life predictors of adolescent suicidal thoughts and adverse outcomes in two population-based cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding suicidality has proven challenging given the complex aetiology in early childhood. Being able to accurately predict groups at increased risk of developing suicidal thoughts may aid in the development of targeted prevention programs that mitigate increased vulnerability. Further, the predictors of suicidal thoughts may be shared with other outcomes in adolescence. Previous research has linked many factors to suicidality, so the objective of this study was to consider how these factors may act together to increase risk of suicidal thoughts and other non-mental health outcomes. METHODS: Two longitudinal datasets were used in this analysis: the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) and the Avon Longitudinal Survey of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). A Classification and Regression Tree model comprised of 75 factors describing early childhood was constructed to identify subgroups of adolescents at high risk of suicidal thoughts in the NLSCY and was validated in ALSPAC. These subgroups were investigated to see if they also had elevated rates of antisocial behaviour, substance misuse, poor physical health, poor mental health, risky health behaviours, and/or poor academic performance. RESULTS: The sensitivity was calculated to be 22·7%, specificity was 89·2%, positive predictive value 17·8%, and negative predictive value 91·8% and had similar accuracy in the validation dataset. The models were better at predicting other adverse outcomes compared to suicidal thoughts. CONCLUSION: There are groups of risk factors present in early life that can predict higher risk of suicidality in adolescence. Notably, these factors were also predictive of a range of adverse outcomes in adolescence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".