Do neurocognitive abilities distinguish suicide attempters from suicide ideators? A systematic review of an emerging research area
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent findings suggest that neurocognitive deficits may hasten progression from suicidal thoughts to behavior. To test this proposition, we examined whether neurocognitive deficits distinguish individuals who have attempted suicide (attempters) from those who have considered suicide but never attempted (ideators). A comprehensive literature search yielded 14 studies comparing attempters to ideators on a range of neurocognitive abilities. In general, attempters and ideators scored comparably across neurocognitive abilities (median Hedges' g = −.18). An exception was a moderate difference for inhibition and decision making (median Hedges' g = −.50 and g = −.49, respectively). Results suggest that some neurocognitive abilities might help explain the transition from suicidal thoughts to suicide attempts. However, findings are regarded as suggestive, given the small number of studies, few cross-study examinations of neurocognitive domains, and variability in sample characteristics. Recommendations for future research are included.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it