Suicidal risk factors in major affective disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates and risk factors for suicidal behaviour require updating and comparisons among mood disorders.AimsTo identify factors associated with suicidal risk in major mood disorders. METHOD: We considered risk factors before, during and after intake assessments of 3284 adults with/without suicidal acts, overall and with bipolar disorder (BD) versus major depressive disorder (MDD), using bivariate comparisons, multivariable regression modelling and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Suicidal prevalence was greater in BD versus MDD: ideation, 29.2 versus 17.3%; attempts, 18.8 versus 4.78%; suicide, 1.73 versus 0.48%; attempts/suicide ratio indicated similar lethality, 10.9 versus 9.96. Suicidal acts were associated with familial BD or suicide, being divorced/unmarried, fewer children, early abuse/trauma, unemployment, younger onset, longer illness, more dysthymic or cyclothymic temperament, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), substance misuse, mixed features, hospital admission, percentage time unwell, less antidepressants and more antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. Logistic regression found five independent factors: hospital admission, more depression at intake, BD diagnosis, onset age ≤25 years and mixed features. These factors were more associated with suicidal acts in BD than MDD: percentage time depressed/ill, alcohol misuse, >4 pre-intake depressions, more dysthymic/cyclothymic temperament and prior abuse/trauma. ADHD and total years ill were similar in BD and MDD; other factors were more associated with MDD. By ROC analysis, area under the curve was 71.3%, with optimal sensitivity (76%) and specificity (55%) with any two factors. CONCLUSIONS: Suicidal risks were high in mood disorders: ideation was highest with BD type II, attempts and suicides (especially violent) with BD type I. Several risk factors for suicidal acts differed between BD versus MDD patients.Declaration of interestNo author or immediate family member has financial relationships with commercial entities that might appear to represent potential conflicts of interest with the information presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".