MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938802648 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz018.469

F57. EVALUATION OF SUICIDE RISK IN SCHIZOPHRENIA SPECTRUM DISORDERS - A LITERATURE REVIEW

2019· review· en· W2938802648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Octavian Vasiliu

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizoaffective disorderPsychiatrySuicidal ideationPopulationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Suicide attemptPsychologyBipolar disorderDiagnosis of schizophreniaMedicinePoison controlClinical psychologyPsychosisSuicide preventionMoodMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia have a higher risk for suicide than general population, and the elevated prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempts represents a challenge for this population. Data in the literature sustain a lifetime risk of suicide in schizophrenia between 5 and 15%, and the rate of suicide attempts is even higher, varying from 20 to 40%. Suicide ideation and suicide attempts are observed in patients both during acute phase of schizophrenia spectrum disorder and between psychotic episodes. Post-psychotic depression, affective symptoms within psychotic acute episodes, specific positive symptoms that could trigger suicide behaviors, and co-morbid substance use disorders are the most supported suicide risk factors. A literature search was performed in the main electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Thomson Reuters/Web of Science) using as keywords “suicide risk”, “suicide ideation”, “suicide attempts”, “schizophrenia”, “schizoaffective disorder”, and “psychotic disorders”. All papers published between 1998 and 2018 have been included in the primary analysis. Inclusion criteria: observational, interventional, randomized, single/double-blind or open trial, national registry analysis, retrospective chart analysis or outpatient recordings review; age between 18 and 65; patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychotic disorder not otherwise specified who presented at least one episode of suicidal ideation or at least one suicide attempt; use of structured methods for evaluation of the suicide risk. Exclusion criteria: unspecified trial design, case reports, case series, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, age under 18 and above 65, multiple somatic and psychiatric co-morbidities, lack of a specified instrument for suicide risk evaluation. A number of 82 papers were found after the primary search, but only 4 remained after inclusion and exclusion criteria filters were applied. These four papers were retrospective analyses based on hospital charts and outpatients’ recordings analysis (n=3), and one prospective clinical trial. A total number of 17,582 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and related disorders were included in these four papers. Higher Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) score, anxiety, guilt, gender, age, number of previous hospitalizations, previous suicide attempts, financial or relationship losses, multiple psychiatric co-morbidities were the most reported risk factors for suicide in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders should be carefully evaluated and monitored for suicide risk. The use of structured interviews and/or validated scales for suicide ideation and behaviors may be very helpful in the early detection of patients at risk, especially in the context of communicational difficulties frequently observed in psychoses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0270.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207