Psychological Pain in Suicidality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Perform a meta-analysis to quantify the association between psychological pain and current or lifetime history of suicidal ideation or suicide attempt. DATA SOURCES: Search MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsycINFO from 1965 to 2015 for (psychache OR mental pain OR psychological pain) AND (suicid*). STUDY SELECTION: Observational case-control studies addressing the difference in psychological pain between individuals with and without current or lifetime history of suicidal ideation or suicide attempt. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted into a standard electronic form. All authors were contacted for unpublished data related to current or lifetime history of suicide ideation or attempt. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty studies were included. Comparisons concerned 760 subjects with versus 8,803 subjects without lifetime history of suicide attempt; 344 subjects with versus 357 patients without current suicide attempt; 262 patients with versus 64 patients without lifetime history of suicidal ideation; and 551 subjects with versus 7,383 subjects without current suicidal ideation. The intensity of psychological pain was higher (1) in both subjects with lifetime history of suicide attempts and subjects with current suicide attempts versus without (effect sizes = 0.72, P < 10⁻² and 0.66, P < 10⁻², respectively) and (2) in both subjects with lifetime history of suicide ideation and subjects with current suicidal ideation versus without (effect sizes = 1.49, P = .01 and 1.15, P < 10⁻², respectively). Association between psychological pain and suicidality remained significant even when depression levels were not different between subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Higher psychological pain levels are associated with suicidal ideation and acts. Considering psychological pain to be at the core of suicidality is important for daily clinical practice and for the promotion of innovative therapeutic strategies for suicide prevention.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".