Suicidal ideation in patients with coronary heart disease and hypertension: Baseline results from the DEPSCREEN‐INFO clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A high proportion of cardiac patients suffers from depression, which is an antecedent for suicidal ideation. This study identifies clinical vulnerabilities for suicidal ideation in cardiac patients. Methods The primary outcome of the study was severity of suicidal ideation as measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9) item No. 9. Covariates were demographics, cardiac characteristics (i.e., Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina rating of chest pain and New York Heart Association rating of shortness of breath), depression (PHQ‐8,i.e., PHQ‐9 minus item No. 9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7, GAD‐7), somatic symptoms (PHQ‐15), illness perception (Brief‐Illness Perception Questionnaire), and health‐related quality of life (EuroQol‐5D, EQ 5D). Results Data from 1,976 patients were analysed. At least 14% (95% CI [12%, 16%]) of patients indicated suicidal ideations within the last 2 weeks. Bivariate analyses yielded associations between suicidal ideation and higher levels of depression severity, anxiety severity, somatic symptom burden, chest pain, shortness of breath, negative illness perceptions, reduced health‐related quality of life, and a higher probability of living alone (all p < 0.001). A multivariable ordinal regression revealed depression severity and anxiety severity to show the highest associations with suicidal ideation (OR PHQ‐8 = 1.22, p < 0.001; OR GAD‐7 = 1.09, p < 0.001). Having a defibrillator implant was associated with a lower probability of suicidal ideation (OR = 0.27, p = 0.017). Conclusions This study identified several clinical vulnerabilities of suicidal ideation. The results stress the importance of screening for suicidal ideation in clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".