Highlighting psychological pain avoidance and decision‐making bias as key predictors of suicide attempt in major depressive disorder—A novel investigative approach using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Predicting suicide is notoriously difficult and complex, but a serious public health issue. An innovative approach utilizing machine learning (ML) that incorporates features of psychological mechanisms and decision-making characteristics related to suicidality could create an improved model for identifying suicide risk in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Forty-four patients with MDD and past suicide attempts (MDD_SA, N = 44); 48 patients with MDD but without past suicide attempts (MDD_NS, N = 48-42 of whom with suicide ideation [MDD_SI, N = 42]), and healthy controls (HCs, N = 51) completed seven psychometric assessments including the Three-dimensional Psychological Pain Scale (TDPPS), and one behavioral assessment, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Descriptive statistics, group comparisons, logistic regressions, and ML were used to explore and compare the groups and generate predictors of suicidal acts. RESULTS: MDD_SA and MDD_NS differed in TDPPS total score, pain arousal and avoidance subscale scores, suicidal ideation scores, and relevant decision-making indicators in BART. Logistic regression tests linked suicide attempts to psychological pain avoidance and a risk decision-making indicator. The resultant key ML model distinguished MDD_SA/MDD_NS with 88.2% accuracy. The model could also distinguish MDD_SA/MDD_SI with 81.25% accuracy. The ML model using hopelessness could classify MDD_SI/HC with 94.4% accuracy. CONCLUSION: ML analyses showed that motivation to avoid intolerable psychological pain, coupled with impaired decision-making bias toward under-valuing life's worth are highly predictive of suicide attempts. Analyses also demonstrated that suicidal ideation and attempts differed in potential mechanisms, as suicidal ideation was more related to hopelessness. ML algorithms show useful promises as a predictive instrument.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".