ADHD symptoms and suicide attempts in adults with mood disorders: An observational naturalistic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several studies explored the association between ADHD and suicidality in the pediatric population, there is a lack of studies focusing on adults. It is particularly unclear whether comorbid mood disorders confer an increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempt among individuals with high ADHD symptoms. Participants were 111 inpatients admitted to the Department of Psychiatry of Sant'Andrea Hospital between July 2017 and July 2018. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Lifetime and last-month suicidal ideation and attempts were rated with The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Symptoms of ADHD were rated using The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Version 1.1 (ASRS-V1.1). Of the 111 participants, 40.6% had a history of suicide attempts. No associations were found between ADHD symptoms and suicide attempt/ideation as well as mood disorder diagnosis and suicide attempt, while an association between mood disorder diagnosis and suicidal ideation was found. ADHD symptoms were significantly associated with suicide attempt (lifetime and in the last 3 months) only among participants with mood disorders (lifetime, OR 2.30; 95% CI: 0.97–3.64; 3-months OR 2.34; 95% CI: 0.19–4.49) Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, the directions of the associations described are uncertain. Conclusions: ADHD symptoms were significantly associated with lifetime and recent suicide attempts, only when a mood disorder diagnosis was comorbid. The co-occurrence of ADHD symptoms and a mood disorders diagnosis might confer a higher risk of suicide attempt among adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".