The Role of Adolescence in Development Paths Toward Suicide: Specificities and Shaping of Adversity Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. Adolescence is a key period of transitions in the psychological, cognitive, neurobiological and relational domains, which is associated to high susceptibility to adverse life experiences. However, the way adolescent development alters life paths towards suicide remains unclear. Thereby, we aimed at testing whether and how adolescence interfered with the adversity trajectories of individuals who died by suicide. Methods. In a sample of 303 individuals who died by suicide, longitudinal Burden of Adversity ratings were derived from extensive psychological autopsies and life trajectory narrative interviews conducted with informants. Piecewise Joint Latent Class Models allowed the identification of patterns of adversity trajectories and tested the introduction of breakpoints in life-paths. Classes inferred from the optimal model were compared in terms of socio-demographics, psychopathology, and rate of different adverse life events. Results. The most accurate model derived 2 trajectory patterns with a breakpoint in early adolescence. In the first class (n = 39), the burden of adversity increased steadily from birth to death, which occurred at 23 (SE = 1.29). In the second class (n = 264), where individuals died at 43 years of age (SE = 0.96), the burden of adversity followed a similar trajectory during infancy but stabilized between 10 and 14 years and started to increase again at about 25. Childhood family instability, dependent events, exposure to suicide, intra-family sexual victimization and affective disorders at death were more frequent in class 1. Conclusions. A bifurcation in trajectories between early and late suicides occurs during adolescence. The dynamic pattern of adversity during this period is a key issue to understand the developmental heterogeneity in suicide risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".