A Bayesian multilevel analysis of the longitudinal associations between relationship quality and suicidal ideation and attempts among youth with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth with bipolar disorder (BD) are at high risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors and frequently experience interpersonal impairment, which is a risk factor for suicide. Yet, no study to date has examined the longitudinal associations between relationship quality in family/peer domains and suicidal thoughts and behaviors among youth with BD. Thus, we investigated how between-person differences - reflecting the average relationship quality across time - and within-person changes, reflecting recent fluctuations in relationship quality, act as distal and/or proximal risk factors for suicidal ideation (SI) and suicide attempts. METHODS: We used longitudinal data from the Course and Outcome of Bipolar Youth Study (N = 413). Relationship quality variables were decomposed into stable (i.e., average) and varying (i.e., recent) components and entered, along with major clinical covariates, into separate Bayesian multilevel models predicting SI and suicide attempt. We also examined how the relationship quality effects interacted with age and sex. RESULTS: Poorer average relationship quality with parents (β = -.33, 95% Bayesian highest density interval (HDI) [-0.54, -0.11]) or friends (β = -.33, 95% HDI [-0.55, -0.11]) was longitudinally associated with increased risk of SI but not suicide attempt. Worsening recent relationship quality with parents (β = -.10, 95% HDI [-0.19, -0.03]) and, to a lesser extent, friends (β = -.06, 95% HDI [-0.15, 0.03]) was longitudinally associated with increased risk of SI, but only worsening recent relationship quality with parents was also associated with increased risk of suicide attempt (β = -.15, 95% HDI [-0.31, 0.01]). The effects of certain relationship quality variables were moderated by gender but not age. CONCLUSIONS: Among youth with BD, having poorer average relationship quality with peers and/or parents represents a distal risk factor for SI but not suicide attempts. Additionally, worsening recent relationship quality with parents may be a time-sensitive indicator of increased risk for SI or suicide attempt.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".