Suicidal Ideation and Schizophrenia: Contribution of Appraisal, Stigmatization, and Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To predict suicidal ideation in people with schizophrenia, certain studies have measured its relationship with the variables of defeat and entrapment. The relationships are positive, but their interactions remain undefined. To further their understanding, this research sought to measure the relationship between suicidal ideation with the variables of loss, entrapment, and humiliation. METHOD: The convenience sample included 30 patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The study was prospective (3 measurement times) during a 6-month period. Results were analyzed by stepwise multiple regression. RESULTS: The contribution of the 3 variables to the variance of suicidal ideation was not significant at any of the 3 times (T1: 16.2%, P = 0.056; T2: 19.9%, P = 0.117; T3: 11.2%, P = 0.109). Further analyses measured the relationship between the variables of stigmatization, perceived cognitive dysfunction, symptoms, depression, self-esteem, reason to live, spirituality, social provision, and suicidal ideation. Stepwise multiple regression demonstrated that the contribution of the variables of stigmatization and perceived cognitive dysfunction to the variance of suicidal ideation was significant at all 3 times (T1: 41.7.5%, P = 0.000; T2: 35.2%, P = 0.001; T3: 21.5%, P = 0.012). Yet, over time, the individual contribution of the variables changed: T1, stigmatization (β = 0.518; P = 0.002); T2, stigmatization (β = 0.394; P = 0.025) and perceived cognitive dysfunction (β = 0.349; P = 0.046). Then, at T3, only perceived cognitive dysfunction contributed significantly to suicidal ideation (β = 0.438; P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The results highlight the importance of the contribution of the variables of perceived cognitive dysfunction and stigmatization in the onset of suicidal ideation in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".