Childhood-maltreatment subtypes in bipolar patients with suicidal behavior: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with bipolar disorders have a high risk of suicidal behavior. Childhood maltreatment is a well-established risk factor for suicidal behavior. The objective of this study was to examine the association between childhood-maltreatment subtypes and vulnerability to suicide attempts in bipolar disorder using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). METHODS: A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. Thirteen studies met the selection criteria. In the meta-analysis, the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) was used to assess a wide range of childhood maltreatment subtypes, which were analyzed by using a random-effects model to account for the likely variations of true effect sizes between the included studies. RESULTS: In the systematic review, 13 studies met the selection criteria. The CTQ was selected for the meta-analysis to increase the homogeneity of assessment and to encompass a wide range of childhood-maltreatment subtypes. The data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Compared to bipolar non-attempters, bipolar suicide attempters had experienced childhood maltreatment with a significantly higher frequency and had higher total CTQ scores (Hedges' g = -0.38, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.24, z = -5.27, p < 0.001) and CTQ sub-scores (sexual abuse: g = -0.39, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.26, z = -5.97; physical abuse: g = -0.26, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.13, z = -4.00; emotional abuse: g = -0.39, 95%CI -0.65 to -0.13, z = -2.97; physical neglect: g = -0.18, 95%CI -0.31 to -0.05, z = -2.79; emotional neglect: g = -0.27, 95%CI -0.43 to -0.11, z = -3.32). CONCLUSIONS: Childhood maltreatment, as assessed by the CTQ, may contribute to an increased risk of suicidal behavior among people with bipolar disorders. Recognizing maltreatment as an etiological risk factor is a crucial step toward furthering science-based preventive psychiatry.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".